Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
It's funny. Laugh.

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Smitty, do you know this guy? 20

Journal by damn_registrars
Someone just introduced themselves in one of my journal entries, and the way he writes you could be brothers separated at birth. I thought you were quick to move the goal posts, but if you two teamed up I'd never even see them!

Take a look at the humor starting here. To make it even better he has a much higher UID than my own and over 5,000 comments to his credit, so I would bet the hits just keep rolling!
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smitty, do you know this guy? More

Smitty, do you know this guy?

Comments Filter:

  • A lot of people try to make that argument, but none can support it.

    To quote you. But all the Gruber clips point out that anyone supporting ObamaCare is either a liar or a fool, so the need to argue against the legislative equivalent of cancer is unclear.

    • A lot of people try to make that argument, but none can support it.

      To quote you.

      Nice snippet, there. Try taking the full comment and reading what it's about before you go and plant your foot in your mouth with assumptions on what you want me to be saying.

      anyone supporting ObamaCare is either a liar or a fool, so the need to argue against the legislative equivalent of cancer is unclear.

      I have been 100% opposed to the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 since it lost the single payer option. Feel free to go back through my comment history here and you will find that statement is well supported and well documented. There is no good explanation for why you are so desperately trying to shoehorn me into the

      • Socialized Medicine in general, and ObamaCare in particular, are all a river of lies, from conception, to the Pelois-Reid-Obama abortion, Roberts reaching into his colostomy bag of tricks to keep it undead, to its current zombie-like brain eater state. I wish the voodoo court would just find the text reads what it says, and let ObamaCare die, die, die. But even our SCOTUS has been corrupted by unHoly Progress.
        To ATFQ, I don't know the guy.

        • Socialized Medicine in general, and ObamaCare in particular

          The larger set at the start of that statement does not include the latter example. There are no aspects of socialized medicine in the ACA. As I have said a great many times, I wish there were - I would then be supporting it.

          I wish the voodoo court would just find the text reads what it says

          If they read it - which you would do yourself a favor by trying as well (but we know how proud you are to lecture on texts you refuse to read) - they would find that indeed there is no socialized medicine in the bill. Hence this case cannot be a ruling on socialized medicine in any

          • tl;dr: blah, blah, blah.
            • Yeah, and as long as you keep not reading it, you can never be called a liar when you make a statement of what's in it - as you never saw it, right?

              Ignorance, the perfect conservative defense!
              • There is wisdom in avoiding foolishness, yes.
                • It is amazing how willing to are to discard something you haven't read as foolish. That decision itself sounds a bit ... foolish.
                  • Not if you're either the originator or touting a source. Your endorsement is pretty much a Judas kiss for anything, in my opinion.
                    • Well, if that helps you sleep at night, in your underinformed bed, then so be it. However claiming yourself to be knowledgeable on Communism when you refuse to read The Communist Manifesto is about as rational as claiming yourself to be an expert on gambling after watching a half hour of the world series of poker with the sound muted.
                    • Far from refusing to read it, I went along find until somebody proved faithless. But why let a fact interrupt your rhetoric? Or, go ahead and pick up the next installment, please.

                    • I went along find until somebody proved faithless

                      You proved yourself faithless in the reading with your last comments on it. Your last JE on the matter was at best a meta-review of the section rather than anything resembling an original read. Although the way you started it did not suggest an honest interest in reading it anyways, but that last JE confirmed it.

                    • You're beautiful and are fully capable of rationalizing anything.
                    • You could opt to provide a reason for me to believe that you ever had an intent of actually reading the text for yourself. You gave solid reasons against.
                    • Well, you could always test your hypothesis by simply carrying through with your end of the deal.
                      But that would require honor on your part.
                      I've thought about pressing onward with the project myself, but such effort is about as valuable as trying to convince you to do what you agreed to.
                    • You are in no position to lecture me on honor on this topic, period.

                      You have shown that you are not committed to actually reading the text. It is a waste of my time to try to persuade you to read it, when you have demonstrated plainly that you are not going to.

                    • You are in no position to lecture me on honor on this topic, period.

                      Sure I am. Get off your dead backside, loser.

                    • You are in no position to lecture me on honor on this topic, period.

                      Sure I am.

                      Except your own writings on the matter counter that claim. You lose.

                      Get off your dead backside, loser.

                      Is this what kind & gentle conservatism looks like to you?

Slashdot Top Deals

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Close