Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Republicans

damn_registrars's Journal: When it doubt, try for the Jedi Mind-Trick, right? 44

Journal by damn_registrars
not that it will work, but the new GOP party mantra is to pretend that nobody from their camp was calling for impeachment. Even more so, try desperately to convince people that this who impeachment bit was cooked up by ... wait for it ...

The Obama administration themselves!

That's right! If the GOP lies about it enough they will eventually wear out the thinking public and get them to believe that Obama (perhaps in cooperation with the high reptoids from the illuminati) actually cooked this whole thing up just to ...

just to ...

just to ...

just ...

Well, shit the GOP forgot to write that part. Take your pick, they have no shortage of conspiracy theories that the like to keep pumping into the media. Clearly this somehow advances his agenda of giving pentillions of dollars worth of socialized medicine, education, ponies, communist mantras, and rent-controlled mansions to illegal immigrants by way of ACORN, Jeremiah Wright, and trade unions. Or something.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When it doubt, try for the Jedi Mind-Trick, right?

Comments Filter:
  • Or are you going to sit there and pretend that there isn't a whole lot of opportunism going on?
    • There is plenty of fundraising coming about on both sides with this. The point though is as much as the GOP loves to distort reality on a regular basis and has no qualms about lying to the public, this is an exceptionally blatant case of the latter. There is a long list of republicans who have been shouting for impeachment in DC for some time (some almost as long as you!) and now the orders passed down to them from above are to lie about ever demanding it, and to make that lie everywhere they possibly can
      • The voters gave #OccupyResoluteDesk a pass in 2012. Until such time as the voters give the GOP such a commanding majority that substantial action is possible, all the impeachment talk is just so much hormonal whinging. What really must terrify the GOP is that, given such power, the silent conservative majority would expect them to accomplish some no-kidding reform. Which is why the GOP prefers the sweet passive aggression of letting the IRS crush the Tea Parties.
        To your "Health Insurance Industry Bailout A
        • The voters gave [absurd analogy] a pass in 2012

          A pass for, or to do, what exactly? He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...

          Until such time as the voters give the GOP such a commanding majority that substantial action is possible, all the impeachment talk is just so much hormonal whinging.

          So then are you done calling for impeachment? Even if both chambers are deep red as a result of this election, impeachment won't lead to removal before the end of Obama's term. A deep red house and senate could repeal the bailout - but they won't because their owners won't let them - and potentially pass veto-proof bills if the majority is great enough. But if their goal is to more (more) nothi

          • A pass for, or to do, what exactly?

            Um, to. . . occupy [occupywallst.org] the. . .(wait for it). . .Resolute Desk [wikipedia.org].

            He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...

            So, exactly how "[absurd" was my "analogy]", please?

            So then are you done calling for impeachment?

            As I was explaining to my dad during the daily call on the way home, the way politics works, you don't bring anything to a vote unless you know what the outcome will be. While, in a absolute sense, I don't doubt that orders of magnitude more information exists than would be needful to demonstrate "high crimes and misdemeanors [nationalreview.com]"

            Contrary to some less than informed opinion, "high crimes and misdemeanors"--the legal standard for impeachment--refers not to indictable criminal offenses but to profound breaches of the public trust by high-ranking officials. Once the standard is understood, it becomes easy to see that the president and his underlings have committed numerous, readily provable impeachable offenses. Yet, even if a president commits a hundred high crimes and misdemeanors, impeachment is a non-starter unless the public is convinced that the president should be removed from power. The real question is political: Are his lawlessness and unfitness so thoroughgoing that we can no longer trust him with the awesome power of the chief executive?

            Thus, November can be reviewed as a No-Talent Rodeo Clown Referendum: the

            • A pass for, or to do, what exactly?

              Um, to. . .occupy the. . .(wait for it). . .Resolute Desk.

              You try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.

              He hasn't exactly done much since. Not that he did a whole lot before...

              So, exactly how "[absurd" was my "analogy]", please?

              The absurd analogy in your silly hashtag is absurd because you are trying to - by repetition and hand-waving alone - convince people that the two conc

              • You try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.

                No no, the desperation is 100% on your end, I assure you.

                I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you are so sure of this.

                Strong correlation with consciousness during the previous 6 years, I suppose.

                So, then, ~35% of the public - or 80%+ of your own party - supporting impeachment are sufficient in your mind to venture down this road? Not many people would ordinarily consider such a group to be an accurate assessment of "the public".

                Your continued desperation to attach ownership of the GOP to me is. . .quaint. The only numbers that are going to matter are the results of the November elections.

                If the GOP are invertebrates, then the democrats are - at most structurally - pond scum. They haven't stood for much of anything as a party in over a decade.

                Aw, c'mon, boss: both stand for the increase of Federal power.

                What I did was still more than you have done to attempt to fill in your cavernous gaps of knowledge.

                Oh, OW! Oh, that hurts! Oh, the suffering! Imma go cry now.

                • You try so desperately to connect those two unrelated concepts; apparently under the belief that you can force them into association by repetition alone. I would point out to you that there were actually people from the original occupy (wall st.) movement who actually wanted to run against President Lawnchair but I don't expect that would slow you down any.

                  No no, the desperation is 100% on your end, I assure you.

                  You say that as if you could support it, yet so far you have been wholly unable to.

                  I would be genuinely interested in knowing why you are so sure of this.(that orders of magnitude more information exists than would be needful to demonstrate "high crimes and misdemeanors")

                  Strong correlation with consciousness during the previous 6 years, I suppose.

                  That is a strange way to say "because I believe it to be such".

                  So, then, ~35% of the public - or 80%+ of your own party - supporting impeachment are sufficient in your mind to venture down this road? Not many people would ordinarily consider such a group to be an accurate assessment of "the public".

                  Your continued desperation to attach ownership of the GOP to me is. . .quaint.

                  You pretending that the Tea Party is anything more than an only-slightly-more radical and slightly-less-informed - and somewhat-differently-funded - branch of the GOP is ... amusing.

                  The only numbers that are going to matter are the results of the November elections.

                  So if enough people vote against their own interests in the 2014 elections, we can then spend millions (if not billions) of dollars on an impeachment that has no chance of removing

        • "Emails Show Cozy Government-Insurer Alliance, Expectation of Bailout."

          How the fuck is that news?
          • "Emails Show Cozy Government-Insurer Alliance, Expectation of Bailout."

            How the fuck is that news?

            Wait, are you referring to the massive handout they already got in 2010, or are they asking for a bailout after their handout?

            • Hold it a godforsaken minute--those insurance firms invested a pretty penny to get Pres'ent Obama into office. How dare you deny them their kickback, oh recidivist conservative upholder of the Rule of Law.
              • LOL, check out the noob who's only just discovered kickbacks!

                Here, let me be helpful: If this animates you so, take aim at some of your local critters. They're just as corrupt, but a lot easier to take out.
              • Hold it a godforsaken minute--those insurance firms invested a pretty penny to get Pres'ent Obama into office

                You aren't trying to pretend that their spending ended there, are you? It is well known that the insurance industry owns politicians from both sides of the aisle. This same bill would have come about had a President McCain said he wanted health care reform.

                • It's your counterfactual, and you can blow the sunshine anyway you like.
                  • If you don't like facts, that isn't really my problem. The simple fact of the matter is that far more politicians currently in DC have taken money from insurance industry interests than have not. You may want to pretend otherwise but that won't make it so.
                    • If you don't like facts, that isn't really my problem.

                      Also not your problem: the non-factual nature of this statement:

                      This same bill would have come about had a President McCain said he wanted health care reform.

                      President McCain didn't happen. It's by no means certain that the old goat would've proven as utterly heedless of the will of the people regarding the river of lies that is the Affordable Care Act, had he been POTUS.
                      Again, though, you can make it up as you desire.

                    • This same bill would have come about had a President McCain said he wanted health care reform.

                      President McCain didn't happen. It's by no means certain that the old goat would've proven as utterly heedless of the will of the people regarding the river of lies that is the Affordable Care Act, had he been POTUS.

                      The question is only whether or not a President McCain would have wanted anything called health care reform. He may have discarded entirely any discussion of it as not being sufficiently "maverick-y" or under similar bullshit. However if he had wanted "health care reform", the same crappy bill would have passed the house and senate (regardless of partisan composition of the two) and he would have signed it.

                      For that matter had it made it to voting in either chamber, with any chance of not being signed

                    • Again, it didn't happen. You speak of certainty regarding the unknowable. It's more theologically interesting that you would even try to do so than it is of practical import.
                      tl;dr: a distraction.
                    • You speak of certainty regarding the unknowable

                      That is a strange statement coming from you, considering how certain you are of the validity of your conspiracy theories against the president which you have no facts to support.

                      It would also be strange to see you describe my statements that way considering the facts of who is on the payroll of the insurance industry, but you don't like facts much when it comes to politics, so in this way that statement is very much in line with your standard M.O.

                    • That is a strange statement coming from you, considering how certain you are of the validity of your conspiracy theories against the president which you have no facts to support.

                      You're right: the last six years haven't happened. Thanks for the Drano refresh.

                    • That is a strange statement coming from you, considering how certain you are of the validity of your conspiracy theories against the president which you have no facts to support.

                      You're right: the last six years haven't happened. Thanks for the Drano refresh.

                      There is no shortage of things that have gone wrong during the Lawnchair Administration, with the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 as the capstone of how little has been accomplished (in comparison to what was described in campaign promises) and how deeply conservative their actions will be remembered to be. However you look at every action as part of some great conspiracy theory intending to bring us towards some extreme socialist hellhole, in spite of their being no evidence whatsoever to s

                    • There is no shortage of things that have gone wrong during the Lawnchair Administration

                      Just economize by pointing out what's gone right. Um, nope. It truly has been all bollocks, all the time.
                      Now, we can be evenhanded and point out that W. was substantially bollocks, too. Fine.
                      Past all the fannying about, what do we have to do to brush these Progressive morons aside and set about some real reform.

                    • There is no shortage of things that have gone wrong during the Lawnchair Administration

                      Just economize by pointing out what's gone right. Um, nope. It truly has been all bollocks, all the time.

                      More or less, yes. The Lawnchair Administration has been nothing but a continuation of the previous administration, which was an amplified version of three administrations prior to it.

                      Now, we can be evenhanded and point out that W. was substantially bollocks, too. Fine.

                      We're almost making progress here...

                      Past all the fannying about, what do we have to do to brush these Progressive morons aside

                      How can you call them "Progressive" when they haven't done or changed anything? All they have done is continued on the same right wing trajectory of Reagan and his legion. The only thing missing from the Lawnchair Administration are the cowboy hats.

                    • Oh bla bla bla. The insurance windfall did happen. To claim the person in front of camera makes any difference in such matters is the epitome of naivete. But then once again, you are proving your partisanship. You are married to the republicans, and you still worship Saint Ronnie, as you did Bush during his term, and McCain and Romney's during their campaigns Stop trying to deny it. Your mind is set in stone. Your faux outrage fools no one.

                    • Oh whine whine whine. If you point had merit, then we should dispense with elections entirely. But weren't not going to anytime soon. And why might that be? Because you're a crapflooder, that's why.
                      To your point, we have feckless leadership, because we have tolerated it.
                    • How can you call them "Progressive" when they haven't done or changed anything?

                      Sure they have. They have Progressively weakened the fundamental individualism, dedication to rule of law, and commitment to liberty that have been informed our civilization since Magna Carta [amazon.com]. It's all collapse into the Orwellian über-state, all the time. As far as I can tell, you and fustakrakich support this foolishness.
                      We're being bribed with our own money via deficit spending on entitlements, and the turd munchers in our society are just playing along merrily.

                    • Lots of nice catch phrases there, but as usual no support for them...

                      How can you call them "Progressive" when they haven't done or changed anything?

                      Sure they have. They have Progressively weakened the fundamental individualism

                      How? I've noticed you have been grabbing more random phrases from the Ron Paul / Ayn Rand bag of dogma; I would hope you would be wise enough not to drink their kool-aid.

                      dedication to rule of law

                      This has not been a change in course in that dept.

                      and commitment to liberty

                      If only that phrase actually meant something; then I could respond to it.

                    • To your point, we have feckless leadership, because we have tolerated it.

                      And you still are. You just won't admit it.

                    • Whereas you, in contrast, are the height of academic rigor. [eye roll]
                    • Probably depends upon what you mean by "tolerate" and "admit".
                    • Whereas you, in contrast, are the height of academic rigor.

                      I have given you references in the past, and you have refused to even look at them. You then give links to conservative blog posts and get angry at me when I question their rigor.

                      That, however, is not the biggest problem by a long shot. When you make a claim about how you are 1000% convinced that the Lawnchair Administration is going to make an 11th-hour clandestine move to bring about a totalitarian socialist nightmare, I ask why and you say "just because". Then when I point out that your argument is

                    • you make a claim about how you are 1000% convinced that the Lawnchair Administration is going to make an 11th-hour clandestine move to bring about a totalitarian socialist nightmare, I ask why and you say "just because"

                      The only evidence I have is the last six years.

                    • you make a claim about how you are 1000% convinced that the Lawnchair Administration is going to make an 11th-hour clandestine move to bring about a totalitarian socialist nightmare, I ask why and you say "just because"

                      The only evidence I have is the last six years.

                      Your "evidence" is comically non evidential. Because the Obama Administration has not launched the Great Socialist Totalitarian Takeover (GSTT for short) that you have been paranoid of since (at least) September of 2008, you are now claiming that it is around the corner. When should we then expect this event - that you have no logical reason to anticipate - to occur, then? Will they launch it in January 2017?

                      The first four years of the Obama Administration were the same as the four years that came rig

                    • non sequitur. Please try to stay on topic. Just because you found another book on amazon that agrees with your worldview does not mean that your previous argument - which does not connect to the title of the book you linked to at all - is suddenly magically made logical.
                    • This is Slashdot. Please continue to say un-intentionally funny things like "Please try to stay on topic".
                    • Here I thought you might actually try to defend your stance. Instead you are defending changing the topic away from it to avoid discussing it. Interesting play, there. Oh, how we both wish you had facts so that we could have an actual discussion.
                    • "actual discussion"
                      You SOOoo funny.
                    • Well, I would point to an example of the two of us having an actual discussion - rather than you dodging the topic when it becomes difficult for you - but I don't have the patience to dig that far back in my comment history. I was convinced that it had happened before, but you are causing me to doubt that.

                      Should I remind you that this JE is pointing out that your party bosses don't want you calling for impeachment anymore?

                      Hell, we almost managed to have a discussion here, until you torpedoed it a c [slashdot.org]
                    • The lady doth protest too much, methinks [wikipedia.org]
                      I guess I used to think there was some kind of mutual exchange of ideas going on here, but somewhere between your accusation that I had been calling for assassination of a public figure, and your accusation that I was a plagiarist, I realized that you're just a spitballer, and utterly ceased taking you seriously.
                      In all candor, it's not clear to me how I could ever take you 100% seriously again. Probably via a different, non-jackwagon accout.

If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.

Working...