Journal damn_registrars's Journal: It's Official: Joe Biden's Son is a GOP Candidate 91
If Ronald Reagan's son is a liberal, then there is no reason why Joe Biden's son can't be a republican. Hunter Biden just matched George W Bush's military career and PR record in one fell swoop. He's old enough to run for POTUS, maybe the GOP will field a Biden-Bush ticket in 2016?
I don't understand (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry it will set the conservative blogosphere alight soon enough. I'm sure someone can feed you a rea
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I had already blogged about your boy Hunter.
So then what is there that you don't understand?
Oh, wait. You like to write first, read later (if ever). Your blog is not an indication that you have any idea of what happened or how it matches previous historical precedent. Well, I can't do anything about that; you made your bed go ahead and lay in it.
Re: (Score:1)
Your blog is not an indication that you have any idea of what happened or how it matches previous historical precedent.
Only if you're going to be naïve, and claim that the Democrats somehow represent the 1% in any lesser way than the Republicans.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you're going to be naÃve, and claim that the Democrats somehow represent the 1% in any lesser way than the Republicans.
The failure of that statement should bother you. For it to parse one of two things must be true:
Note that the first one agrees with the notion that you never made any serious attempt
Re: (Score:1)
I did too read ~2/3 of the Communist Manifesto, and thought it pure propaganda.
the second is also in agreement with my consistent narrative of the current POTUS being the most conservative president in the history of our country
For some purely subjective definition of 'conservative', which actual conservatives would reject, sure. It's your 1st Amendment right to be daft, and you do exercise it with flair.
Re: (Score:2)
I did too read ~2/3 of the Communist Manifesto, and thought it pure propaganda.
So you have not read it to completion, and you have not comprehended any of it. In other words you are being disingenuous when you claim to have read it at all. Doesn't your Lord advocate humility and warn against being a braggart?
the second is also in agreement with my consistent narrative of the current POTUS being the most conservative president in the history of our country
For some purely subjective definition of 'conservative', which actual conservatives would reject, sure.
Tell me, who is the most conservative president we have had prior to Obama? Can you show me a single bill that Obama signed that he would not have?
Furthermore, every conservative politician who has been trying to campaign against the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act
Re: (Score:1)
In other words you are being disingenuous when you claim to have read it at all. Doesn't your Lord advocate humility and warn against being a braggart?
Oh, so I don't agree with you, and thus I'm being disingenuous?
Re: (Score:2)
For you, 'comprehend' == 'agree', it seems.
Not even remotely close to true. For example, I easily comprehend that you do not wish to understand communism or to read the Communist Manifesto. I do not agree with you discarding it so readily and parading yourself about as being knowledgeable on it when you intentionally opt to not read it, but I comprehend that you have made that choice.
In other words you are being disingenuous when you claim to have read it at all. Doesn't your Lord advocate humility and warn against being a braggart?
Oh, so I don't agree with you, and thus I'm being disingenuous?
How did you reach that conclusion? I laid my argument in front of you, and your own comments support it. You have not read the Communist Manifesto and yet you are
Re: (Score:1)
Marx has identified Satan, the bourgeoisie in his telling, and promised heaven if people just purge Satan from their midst in an apocalyptic class-warfare meltdown. Amiright?
This is a comely tale for the crowd that has rejected Christianity, yet still needs at least an ersatz existential model.
Yet nothing I've seen thus far models the real existential model of the fallen individual who needs
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And frankly, it does not appear that you have read 90% of and comment I have written in the past year or so. If your reading of the Communist Manifesto is 90% of the "reading" you apply to my comments then you probably haven't read more than 30% of the words on the pages.
Re: (Score:1)
As gospels go, it's a wretched bucket of fail. As propaganda for duping otherwise intelligent people, it's clearly been a smashing success.
Re: (Score:2)
I get a straight percentage off of the Kindle.
Wow, you read the page number at the bottom of the reader. Impressed? No, I am not.
And sure, I'm skimming it.
It's debatable whether your reading style is worth being summarized as skimming. From your replies it seems you read at most 10% of the words. The fact that you go through "skimming" it and come out with the same conclusions on it that you had before you took it upon yourself to start "skimming" it supports the notion that you are not making anything resembling a vague attempt at comprehension. In fact I expect you wou
Re: (Score:1)
Impressed? No, I am not.
Oh wait: my task was to impress you? Who knew?
From your replies it seems you read at most 10% of the words.
Let's be perfectly clear here: you're going to accuse me of having failed to read with understanding unless I agree with whatever it is you want. IOW, this is not an actual dialogue.
In fact I expect you would have been just as well off finding a Mandarin translation from the original German, and then attempt to read it in a mirror while gargling hydrogen peroxide and juggling flaming chainsaws.
How would such an arrangement have affected the fundamental sucktacularity of the material in any way?
Re: (Score:2)
From your replies it seems you read at most 10% of the words.
Let's be perfectly clear here: you're going to accuse me of having failed to read with understanding unless I agree with whatever it is you want
No. You are inserting your beliefs here. Your beliefs have no basis in reality this time.
More importantly you have already admitted in multiple ways to having not actually read it. Why you insist on lying in the face of your own statements is not clear.
IOW, this is not an actual dialogue.
How can we have a dialogue on a text that you refuse to read? If I did the same about one of your blog posts you would respond the same way would you not?
In fact I expect you would have been just as well off finding a Mandarin translation from the original German, and then attempt to read it in a mirror while gargling hydrogen peroxide and juggling flaming chainsaws.
How would such an arrangement have affected the fundamental sucktacularity of the material in any way?
You would then have a physical excuse for not reading it as you would be physically impeded fr
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Look, do you want to commit to reading/critiquing TCM in chunks?
Only if you will start over from page 1 and actually read it. If you are going to "skim it" instead and keep giving random soundbites of anger instead of reasoned criticisms then there is no point in trying.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm willing to slog through the cess pool of Marx's thought. .
I'm also willing to do the same with, say, the Gospel of Mark with you. It's the shortest. But let's do yours first.
Because I'm a giver like that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, no: are you willing to do an interactive read with me of this text? We can go back and forth in ~300 word chunks.
Only if we are going to start at the beginning and read every word. No "skimming", no other silliness. I don't think I can make you check your bias and hatred at the door before beginning it but if you will at least read every word that would be a huge improvement and we could have an actual discussion.
I'm willing to slog through the cess pool of Marx's thought. . .if you are.
I want you to commit to going through the entire text, starting over from the beginning of it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How many more repetitions of commitment are required to communicate this to you?
Repetition? I haven't seen you yet commit once to actually reading the text in its entirety. It is hard to repeat something you haven't yet said. I'm used to you moving the goal posts at will, which is why I am asking for a direct commitment from you beforehand to actually reading the full text.
I will read it with you, I will not read it for you. You haven't read it yet, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just might yet read it. If going through it word-for-word will mak
Re: (Score:1)
I haven't seen you yet commit once to actually reading the text in its entirety.
The intent here is for the two of us, you (believer) and me (infidel), to go through your little Commie Qur'an word for word, so that you can help me achieve enlightenment.
I'm used to you moving the goal posts at will, which is why I am asking for a direct commitment from you beforehand to actually reading the full text.
Well, we seem to be in violent agreement here, but you appear to have a deeper commitment to talking about how I won't commit than to accomplishment of anything in particular. *golf clap*
I will read it with you, I will not read it for you. You haven't read it yet, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just might yet read it. If going through it word-for-word will make a difference I will do that, but I will not accept your "skimming" of it.
I promise I will make a fully classical commitment to trying to find something of value in it.
Either commit to reading it in its entirety, or just stop talking about it and stop pretending to be knowledgeable on it.
I've said I will multiple times in this very thread.
Re: (Score:1)
Furthermore, every conservative politician who has been trying to campaign against the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 has been campaigning to replace it with itself. This further supports the notion of Obama being deeply conservative in his actions - which are of course where his legacy will come from.
Alternatively, it supports the assertion that the country enjoys one party rule--The Progressive Party. Those understanding that this route only leads to European-style collapse, and opposing it, will be crushed.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, every conservative politician who has been trying to campaign against the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 has been campaigning to replace it with itself. This further supports the notion of Obama being deeply conservative in his actions - which are of course where his legacy will come from.
Alternatively, it supports the assertion that the country enjoys one party rule--The Progressive Party. Those understanding that this route only leads to European-style collapse, and opposing it, will be crushed.
How is it that rejecting European-style decisions at nearly every critical juncture - particularly with regards to health care and public welfare - could possibly lead to "European-style collapse"? Your thesis of "one party rule" is close to valid but you went off in a completely non-factual direction. Every political action of any consequence that has been taken in this country in the past several decades has been of a conservative - not progressive - slant.
Just as President Lawnchair is demonstrabl
Re: (Score:1)
Every political action of any consequence that has been taken in this country in the past several decades has been of a conservative - not progressive - slant.
Progress==MOAR State.
Conservative==individual liberty.
Sure, there are more details than that, but I reject your notion that we've had any conservative Presidents, with a qualified exception for Reagan, who certainly didn't take these godforsaken entitlements out back and shoot them.
Re: (Score:2)
Progress==MOAR State.
So then clearly, Obama is not a president for "Progress", as the state has not expanded.
I reject your notion that we've had any conservative Presidents
You could make an argument by stopping there. I would ask you again to consider why that would be true. Unfortunately you proceeded to shoot yourself in the foot by continuing to say
with a qualified exception for Reagan
Because Obama is factually more conservative in action than Reagan ever was. Consider:
Re: (Score:1)
Obama is not a president for "Progress", as the state has not expanded.
So you're trying to say that the Affordable Care Act doesn't exist?
Re: (Score:2)
Obama is not a president for "Progress", as the state has not expanded.
So you're trying to say that the Affordable Care Act doesn't exist?
Give me a break. The minimal government expansion of the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is dwarfed by how much the federal government grew under Saint Ronnie. At the same time many other government employees have been given pink slips under President Lawnchair.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact is that Reagan would have jumped for joy at the opportunity to sign the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, as it made us all obligate consumers and gave more power to powerful corporations. That was exactly the kind of thing that he happily endorsed throughout his presidency, and
Re: (Score:1)
The simple fact is that Reagan would have jumped for joy at the opportunity to sign the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010
A counterfactual is not a "simple fact", schmuck. Quit soiling yourself.
For a real world example of Reagan's conservative bona fides, consider the firing of the Air Traffic Controllers. I can only imagine how our current no-talent rodeo clown would have handled such a circumstance, but I'm sure it would have involved golf and cowardice.
Re: (Score:1)
I did too read ~2/3 of the Communist Manifesto, and thought it pure propaganda.
Everything is propaganda, just like your bible. It doesn't have to be true or anything, you just have to believe... That is all the man asks. And I also noticed that the manifesto does little more than disparage *desires of the flesh* from a slightly different angle, the moral(?) is the same. So, like, what's the deal?
Communism is still capitalism, deals have to be made, contracts have to be signed, and the hangman still has to b
Re: (Score:1)
Everything is propaganda, just like your bible.
Wow. You just said that The Holy Bible is fungible with Mein Kampf.
Care to amend that?
Re: (Score:1)
No, there's nothing to amend, both are the words of men. I'm asking you, what's the deal? Am I supposed to characterize the words by the character of the person who writes them?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
With that post you illustrate the value of the messenger. I hope you get my drift. Thanks, I guess...
Re: (Score:1)
Let me put it another way, we all know moral blindness isn't pretty, but what's funny is when the people pointing it out are such avid practitioners. I guess you can call it irony, or maybe even cynicism, or is it mere incongruity? Who knows, those kind of things are beyond me. I did a JE on it, I think it hit the bullseye, and purposely left off the attribution for the guaranteed distraction it would cause. Heh, without having a messenger to kill, it seems to have left nothing to talk about.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Such good as can be found in me is due to the Holy Spirit, by way of Christ. So, can you be more specific about "moral blindness", and how you even arrive at "moral" from your purely materialistic vantage?
Re: (Score:1)
Easy, the same way I came out of the dirt to type this, it stimulates the reward, or pleasure center of the brain. And you, despite your denials, and coming out of the same dirt, are motivated by the same thing. However, not everybody needs to be whipped by your angry,vengeful god to be forced to do "good". So, I will consider your need for a crutch (group hug) as a disability, with plates for the car and everything, so you can park wh
Re: (Score:1)
However, not everybody needs to be whipped by your angry,vengeful god to be forced to do "good".
How can dirt do "good"? And how can you show that my motivations are not a positive desire to be something more than evil? Here's the point: you need first to pray for the understanding of God.
So, I will consider your need for a crutch (group hug) as a disability, with plates for the car and everything, so you can park where you want.
Only to the extent that the sun is a crutch for the vine. Yours is a flawed statement from a flawed understanding.
Re: (Score:1)
Your desires to do "good" originate in the brain. The entire concept of "good" comes from the brain, which came from dirt. Dirt invented "good". And dirt created your god. Here's the point: you need first to pray for the understanding of yourself, if you want to even begin to fathom god.
Re: (Score:1)
Here's the point: you need first to pray for the understanding of yourself, if you want to even begin to fathom god.
What sense does that even make? To whom would such a prayer be directed? What would the content be? I'm having a hard time remembering that I am the idiot here.
Re: (Score:1)
To whom would such a prayer be directed?
To whatever you call "god". It always comes back full circle anyway, so it really doesn't matter. You don't have to direct it at anyone. In fact, come to think of it, the question is silly. If you're talking to yourself, you're already talking to your god. It's not out there somewhere that you can point to. Well, actually, I suppose your god is in whatever location and form you want it to be, after all, it is your creation.
I'm having a hard time remembering that I am
Re: (Score:1)
. . .it really doesn't matter
Isn't that the (not)point of your entire approach? That "To be, or not to be", is as meaningful as asdfgoihvoneqrgqeorngqerinov?
How do you ever reach escape velocity from your Singularity Of Daftness [youtube.com]?
Re: (Score:1)
Everything has the meaning you give it, nothing more, nothing less. The entire concept of "meaning" at all, and your "good" and "evil", and your god is entirely man made.
Acceptance is the first step. Know yourself, until then you can know nothing, least of all anything beyond yourself. You are merely jabbering gibberish.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Somebody else already debunked your nonsense about that in one of your other JEs a few months ago. And besides, evidence, where is it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm just not interested in repeating the circle again. We've done all this. I recognize I am up against ideology, and there is no way to combat that with "debates" or "rebuttals". It just doesn't work, aside from its masturbatory gratification. And your idealism will always win out, no matter what. So, you and d_r, go knock yourselves out. I like to watch.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not trying to be insulting when I say you offer "nothing"; merely that not only find it incomprehensible, I cannot grasp what my motive would be to try to comprehend your "nothing".
Also, I'm to understand that I'm the fool for having an end-to-end existential model that accounts for where we came from, why life is all jacked up, and where it's going. I'm supposed to "awake" from my "foolishness" and move in this "
Re: (Score:1)
Man, I can just see the wheels spinning madly trying to overcomplicate things. The device runs itself.
That's quite a Rube Goldberg Machine you built in that brain of yours. I wonder how you butter your own toast. It's no wonder the simple basics just fly right on by unnoticed, to the point of denial of their existence. This is how things like germ theory and flying machines take such a long time to become accepted. It disturbs the force, the established order, the very root of the authority of man.
Re: (Score:1)
yeah okay, "pudge" :-)
Re: (Score:1)
I was just wanted to find out what format you used that didn't eat the thing...
Thank you, you may now return to, *Another World*...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Whoa! Did JFK test positive too? And is this the same kid that's in with some Russian gas deal or something, or is that his brother (does he have a brother?)?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"The art of advocacy"
Says it all...
Election coming up. Clean the house...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
*sigh* You still play your silly little game... No, I said, clean the house, not rearrange the furniture. Get the Zamboni... Leave no trace of the previous occupants. The senate will take a little longer, but you can start now and show where the real power is. Failure to do so really makes all the complaints sound so dumb.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Term limits are bullshit, completely and utterly superficial. The party and its patrons still remain in power. You have to vote them out, or you accomplish nothing. Instituting term limits is just an attempt to pass the blame.
Re: (Score:1)
Term limits are like chemotherapy. You're going to snuff a few otherwise decent careers, but going after the career cancer is needful.
Re: (Score:1)
It just doesn't work. Mexico is a perfect example. The same party held power for many decades. The same is true in the US at this point. Term limits will do nothing but pacify people. That would be the only reason to do it. Try to string them a little longer.
If your thesis held true, then why wouldn't parties parade fresher, relatively younger faces to gain more power?
Why? With a 95% reelection rate, where is the incentive? And besides they do put their young in the tank when they feel the time is right. Th
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, there is only one way to kill the power, but you won't accept it.
So tell us, oh enlightened one. What is the One True Path To Greatness?
/dev/null.
Voting for Mickey Mouse won't do it; we know those votes go to
Getting a third party president in won't do it (even if it wasn't impossible) as it would just drive the democrats and republicans to work together to circumvent him.
Not voting won't do it either, as there is no minimum number of votes required to elect anyone in this country.
'Term limits will do nothing but pacify people.' (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
In fustakrakich's world, you and I offer the same absolutist arguments, and HE'S the straight man.
When you pick at his ideas a little further, he oscillates between pseudo-Zen statements about how you just
Re: (Score:1)
I think he rejected "random" randomization, if it meant That Awful Woman would take office....
You better reread.. You "think" wrong.. You're making stuff up again. intentionally deceitful? lying? Hard to tell... I told you directly I don't mind at all. Like I said no power can be accumulated. There will be little that can't be quickly undone to minimize the damage. I would have nothing to worry about with her. Besides, I looked at Biden's record (of course I realize you still don't believe I never vote for
Re: (Score:1)
Just part of the show. I paid for my entitlements, and I do expect to collect. I think the word you're looking for is "handouts", like the 85 billion going to your banker buddies, and all the other loopholes in your tax code.
Besides, we're talking about term limits, not entitlements. I mean, we can talk about entitlements if you're tired of the subject at hand, but I was talking about term limits.
Re: (Score:1)
"(of course I realize you still don't believe I never vote for him)" I take everyone at face value with regard to who they say they vote for, or not.
You're actually carrying the persecution complex your heard about on FOX.
Who watches that noise? I take in HGTV and a little NBC News 4. For a total of 1-2 hours/week.
The light bulb has to want to change...
In two weeks, the fatal flaw of majority rule will once again show its monstrous face (with you and d_r, and various others here being perfect representatives)
Oh! The light bulb! Of course! If only we could just incentivize that godforsaken light bulb!
If only the light bulb could defeat that majority ru
Re: (Score:1)
I totally qualified that remark with uncertainty.
Yes, yes, I see that trick in the rags all the time. It's okay, I qualified mine with big old question marks, so there, we're even :-)
Accept the role you play, so that you can move to the next step. Calling it "mumbo-jumbo" is just being defensive of your denial.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I trash her all the time, so what, she's very worthy of it, no different than the rest of these bums. A little bit worse in that she can't keep a commitment, but hey, what do you expect from a redneck flake like that? She's a barroom brawler with a '77 Trans am. And yes you are being wildly inaccurate. You're only trying to find a way to satisfy yourself that the lottery can't work. All the inconsistencies are on your side.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm discussing the kind of consequence you'd face, and pointing out an apparent contradiction: your support of the mechanism seems at odds with a potential result.
You're only trying to find a way to satisfy yourself that the lottery can't work. All the inconsistencies are on your side.
Your perceived inconsistency is what, exactly?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, think about the list of trolls around here that are gone. I take credit for that, bec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because let's face it, there are some things even a whore won't do.