Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Kevlar Kandidate Goes A Little More Krazy 62

Journal by damn_registrars
Since he can't get traction on any existing issue right now, The Kevlar Kandidate has opted to propose a new wall. This one, however, isn't on the US-Mexico border. This one, would be on the US-Canada border. It is unclear what he thinks this would accomplish - beyond bankrupting our country in construction costs.

If I could post pictures directly to slashdot, I would post a picture I took a while back of the US-Canada border at a point where there are just posts every mile or so, with American and Canadian farm fields butting up next to each other the same as anywhere within the country.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kevlar Kandidate Goes A Little More Krazy More

Kevlar Kandidate Goes A Little More Krazy

Comments Filter:
  • ". . .walking on the wild side with d_r. . ."

    "That is a legitimate issue for us to look at," the Republican presidential candidate said on NBC's Meet the Press program.

    How you got from "looking at an issue" to "opted to propose" is mysterious.

    • How you got from "looking at an issue" to "opted to propose" is mysterious.

      That is less of a leap than the ones you take when shouting your favorite conspiracies to the world and why they should lead to extralegal removal (or more) of particular politicians.

      Nonetheless, no reasonable person would consider a wall on the US-Canada border. It simply makes no sense from any angle. We have been patrolling it with drones for some time to supplement the people who survey it. And how could one possibly wall the Great Lakes?

      Although as we saw before, The Kevlar Kandidate only K [slashdot.org]

      • In the middle of all that artful dodging, did you admit that you kind of gave Walker the Full Neil DeGrasse [thefederalist.com]?
        • So you are admitting that you view mine as being worse than any of yours only because I am targeting a conservative American Hero (TM) of yours, while you go to further lengths to target liberal "Commie Sodomites" which is perfectly OK?
          • So, you're basically confessing that your line of un-reason sucks, by attempting to alter the scope of the conversation to include irrelevant material?
            • Anyone with a basic understanding of geography and the political / economic relationship between the US and Canada knows that even considering a wall between the two is both a financially ruinous idea and incredibly stupid.
              • So. . .you're in Thought Police mode? I should think that if it meant a lot of union jobs, and hence Democrat votes, then Andrew Jackson's party should not be too inimical.

                • I should think that if it meant a lot of union jobs

                  First of all, the project is impossible and would nearly bankrupt the country for no benefit - aside from preventing Americans from leaving for an actual democracy with a functioning health care system.

                  Second, if the Kevlar Kandidate became the Kevlar POTUS () why would anyone expect he would allow unions to continue to exist at all? He has done everything possible to dismantle every union - public or private sector - that he can find any power over. He most certainly wouldn't allow union workers to wo

                  • I know, right? Next you'll come out against high speed rail [cbslocal.com].
                    • Weren't you just accusing me of changing topics and moving the goalposts recently? What happened to discussing Scottie's Wall?

                      An intrastate rail is a long cry from a bankruptcy-inducing, international-relations-destroying, completely-unwarranted project like what the Kevlar Kandidate wants to "discuss".
                    • Oh, sorry. I though when you did the

                      aside from preventing Americans from leaving for an actual democracy with a functioning health care system. [slashdot.org]

                      riff, you were OK'ing the non sequiturs. I forget: you apply one ruleset to me, and none to yourself. A thousand pardons, Your Royal Hindquarters.

                    • There is a huge difference between the comment you wrote where you changed the topic completely, and the comment of mine that you linked to, that you are trying to use to accuse me of a similar offense.

                      Namely, you happily jettisoned the entire discussion in the name of partisanship. You brought up one issue and disregarded every other matter that had been discussed in this JE discussion prior to then. When I mentioned the broken health American health care system and the dysfunctional American political

                    • There is a huge difference between the comment you wrote where you changed the topic completely, and the comment of mine that you linked to, that you are trying to use to accuse me of a similar offense.

                      What? You wrote the linked material, and are as capable of admitting a fault as you are telling the truth.

                      Namely, you happily jettisoned the entire discussion in the name of partisanship.

                      You're the one leaping from "left" to a specific party here. That would be a fact, and hence removed from consideration by you, AFAICT.

                      So no, I am not applying different rules.

                      You've never been one to acknowledge rules enough to begin applying them.

                    • If your goal is to show how enthusiastically you can abandon a discussion and turn it in to a personal attack on me, you are doing swimmingly well there. If your goal is to show some basic level of comprehension on the topic or interest in learning about relevant issues, you sunk yourself quite quickly. As much as I enjoy watching you show off your fancy new take on "reading comprehension" (or even just "reading") it does get old after a while, particularly when you keep dropping the discussion in favor o
                    • I love the smell of lefty condescension in the afternoon. It smells like. . .anything you've written.
                    • I would be happy to go back to actually discussing the topic at hand - namely the pure insanity of even suggesting a wall between the US and its top trading partner - but you keep going back to attacking me instead.

                    • namely the pure insanity of even suggesting

                      But is that enough hyperbole? I realize that being a Lefty requires a comprehensive humor-ectomy, but the need to destroy the possibility of even suggesting an idea rhetorically suggests that you've leveled up in the Applied Fascism category.

                    • I gave you a long list of why a wall between the US and Canada would be a terrible idea, quite nearly impossible, and would have a real chance of actually bankrupting our country. You responded by attacking me.

                      Applied Fascism

                      ... and then you went for more ignorance to wrap it up.

                    • You understand that your behavior pattern in this thread is probably related to why some comedians avoid colleges [usatoday.com]? It's as though the threat of Unregulated Thought is just too much to bear.
                    • You'll reach for just about any excuse to avoid actually discussing the topic, won't you?

                      I've seen the comedians ranting about visiting certain college campuses. Everyone has audiences they really enjoy and others they don't. If their booking agents can help them figure out where their best audiences are they should find new agents.
                    • The topic of this thread is your apparent fascist lust to be a speech regulator in the case of Scott Walker. It's kind of like the decay of freedom of speech on college campuses that has some comedians refusing to play them. Not that I expect honest treatment from you of these issues.

                    • The topic of this thread is your apparent fascist lust to be a speech regulator in the case of Scott Walker.

                      I have made no attempt to regulate any speech from any people. The Kevlar Kandidate can say whatever stupid things he wants. Just because I pointed out how ridiculous a wall between the US and Canada would be does not mean I am trying to stop him from calling for it. If he wants to use such a wall to permanently destroy our nation, he is free to explore that possibility.

                      It's kind of like the decay of freedom of speech on college campuses that has some comedians refusing to play them.

                      A constitutional expert such as yourself should be well aware that freedom of speech does not guarantee the speaker any right to be li

                    • And I support and defend your right to say Scott Walker "has opted to propose a new wall" (which he did not), as long as I retain the right to laugh at you as one would an unintentional clown.
                    • Even suggesting a discussion of it is so outlandishly stupid - and doubly so for anyone who is from a state that is anywhere remotely close to Canada - that the gap of stupidity between discussing it and proposing it is essentially zero.
                    • The discussion with Chuck Todd commences at 9:40 in the linked video.

                      Even suggesting a discussion of it is so outlandishly stupid

                      You should watch the clip. I'd suggest that the outlandishly stupid party here could be you. I realize this may be a little bit personal with you, and the just-short-of-sexual need for ad hominem against Walker seems kinda compelling, but have a go at honesty here, and watch him in context. Or not.

                    • You are handling the Kevlar Kandidate with the same kind of kid gloves that were used for Romney throughout his career. By comparison if Walker had a (D) after his name - instead of the blessed (R) - you would have already driven him out of town for his 30 states comment a while back. Instead you are celebrating his destructively awful ideas as "out of the box" or "revolutionary".

                    • 30 states comment a while back

                      If relevant, please provide a URL.

                    • 30 states comment a while back

                      If relevant,

                      It is at least as relevant as anything you have dredged up lately.

                      please provide a URL.

                      I have referred to it more than once before (though not nearly as often as your beloved "57 states" bit). I even posted a JE about it back in July [slashdot.org].

                    • OK. I guess you showed me. Something.
                    • It doesn't matter, you were bound to only take the wrong lesson from this as that is the only lesson you would consider taking from a JE written by someone you don't agree with. I'd love to actually discuss this wall with you, but you keep changing the subject for no obvious reason.

                    • I'd love to actually discuss this wall with you

                      Yep. Always 100% my fault, with you sitting there in your driven-snow purity, weeping alligator tears for the death of rational inquiry. No, sorry: not buying it.

                    • I'd love to actually discuss this wall with you

                      Yep. Always 100% my fault, with you sitting there in your driven-snow purity, weeping alligator tears for the death of rational inquiry. No, sorry: not buying it.

                      I have not made such sweeping claims. I have, however, pointed out that you have an extensive track record of leaving the topic and attacking me instead of discussing the topic. I have multiple times in this thread asked for us to discuss the topic that this JE is dedicated to, and you keep steering the discussion back to an attack on me.

                    • Nah, you're not really interested in talking about how you executed a cheap drive-by on Walker with this JE. That's what occurred, as your JE says he "opted to propose" something. Actually watching the video shows that he, at best, did not reject Chuck Todd outright. Ever the fabulist, you're making stuff up.
                    • The idea should be rejected outright. It is absolutely insane to express even the slightest degree of support or consideration for it. It is on the same level of sanity as building a missile base on the moon to defend us from Al-Qaeda. Someone who lives in a state that both borders multiple great lakes and is near the Canadian border should roundly reject the idea as being beyond absurd.

                    • It is absolutely insane to express even the slightest degree of support or consideration for it.

                      Now, as a public figure, how do you actually do that without being open to the accusation of crushing the 1st Amendment? Further, do you mandate that we boycott Press the Meat, since Chuck Todd broached this topic that is (apparently) as monstrous as screening Triumph of the Will in a synagogue? Or does Todd get a pass as a member of the Codpiece Media?
                      Let me stipulate that I think you know you're being a more of a putz than usual here, and are just incapable of admitting it under any circumstances.

                    • It is absolutely insane to express even the slightest degree of support or consideration for it.

                      Now, as a public figure, how do you actually do that without being open to the accusation of crushing the 1st Amendment?

                      Why would it be anti-1st-amendment to say "I think a wall between the US and Canada is a stupid idea for reasons X, Y, and Z" but yet epically heroic to say "single payer health care is a stupid idea and everyone who has ever suggested it is a total moron as is everyone they have ever met"?

                      As I mentioned in response to your earlier bits about certain comedians not wanting to go to certain college campuses, the first amendment says you can speak your mind but it does not guarantee you an audience. You do

                    • In the context of your assertion

                      It is absolutely insane to express even the slightest degree of support or consideration for it.

                      The answer to your question:

                      Why would it be anti-1st-amendment to say "I think a wall between the US and Canada is a stupid idea for reasons X, Y, and Z"

                      is that, were a private citizen to engage in even the slightest apophasis [wikipedia.org] on the topic, and a public figure were to rail against that private citizen [weeklystandard.com], there is a potential for a chilling effect.
                      At least there is when a conservative public figure engages in such behavior. That's why, for all of his laundry list of other faults, W was correct to be a sponge for whatever abuse the public offered, and not do things like demagogue people who offered ev

                    • and a public figure were to rail against that private citizen, there is a potential for a chilling effect. At least there is when a conservative public figure engages in such behavior.

                      An idea can be shown to be absurd without attacking the person who is asking about it. Furthermore just because it was asked does not mean that the person asking it was in favor of it.

                      W was correct to be a sponge for whatever abuse the public offered, and not do things like demagogue people who offered even the "slightest degree of support or consideration"

                      It was rather easy for his decider-ness to never have to worry about reacting to people, when his administration was carefully selecting people for the white house press corps [wikipedia.org].

                      for noise like TARP.

                      You don't honestly believe that there existed a scenario where he would have been opposed to that, do you? TARP was Wall Street cashing in on their

                    • For a casual glance, this seems the precise opposite of what you wrote in this JE:

                      An idea can be shown to be absurd without attacking the person who is asking about it. Furthermore just because it was asked does not mean that the person asking it was in favor of it.

                      This is a big hoot:

                      It was rather easy for his decider-ness to never have to worry about reacting to people, when his administration was carefully selecting people for the white house press corps

                      Do you really want to get into the incestuous, protein-on-the-jaw relationship between this Administration and the Codpiece Media? I'm confident that you don't, so let's just steer clear of that one.

                      You don't honestly believe that there existed a scenario where he would have been opposed to [TARP], do you?

                      Irrelevant. TARP was merely an example of an issue of prominence toward the end of the W era. What I actually said was

                      demagogue people who offered even the "slightest degree of support or consideration" for noise like TARP.

                      Restated, my point was that W would not have lashed out at someone who had a variant opinion o

                    • It was rather easy for his decider-ness to never have to worry about reacting to people, when his administration was carefully selecting people for the white house press corps

                      (whine) (spin) (hate) (snarkiness)

                      OK, that summarized, my answer to your snarkiness is yes I am willing to discuss the relationship between the Lawnchair Administraiton and the media. To put such a discussion in proper context though we need to compare it to relationships between the media and other presidential administrations; the most logical choice being the most recent administration as it should make for a clear case whether or not your accusation of the current administration really enjoys a different relationship with the media th

                    • You were attacking TARP and suggesting that W would have had an anti-TARP stance but was afraid to show it to the media. The fact that your suggestion is not supported by reality does not make my comment irrelevant.

                      OK, ya got me: there was some tangential snark at TARP.

                      OK, but saying that an idea - such as a wall between the US and Canada - is just simply absurd is still not the same as "lashing out at someone".

                      Are you saying that you've employed no hyperbole at Walker in this thread, and that you sincerely feel you've quoted him fairly and in context at all points?

                    • OK, but saying that an idea - such as a wall between the US and Canada - is just simply absurd is still not the same as "lashing out at someone".

                      Are you saying that you've employed no hyperbole at Walker in this thread, and that you sincerely feel you've quoted him fairly and in context at all points?

                      You cannot possibly claim to have fairly quoted President Lawnchair in your comments and JEs about him. Why do you apply different criteria to me than you apply to yourself?

                      And more to the point, your response does not in any way address the fact that your friend The Kevlar Kandidate could have easily pointed out the problems - and there are many - with the idea of a wall between Canada and the US and still been respectful towards the person asking the question.

                    • You cannot possibly claim to have fairly quoted President Lawnchair in your comments and JEs about him.

                      This attempt to change the subject is both (a) hilarious in light of your recent whining about me being all over the map, and (b) tantamount to an admission that you agree with my point.

                    • Clever editing doesn't get you out of the logical trap that you yourself set and then fell in to.
                    • How does this famous "trap" compare to your own being caught out in the open attempting to put words in the mouth of Scott Walker? I realize that keeping you on topic is a Sisyphean task, but that's no excuse for not trying.
                    • So are you trying to say then that there is even the slightest shred of reason behind an idea of building a wall between the US and Canada?

                    • I guess he wants a sterile cockpit [faa.gov]... the standard two word reply will suffice

                    • Was the second word "you"?
                    • No, I'm saying that, when someone proposes an idea that is absurd, and you're in office, you should at least allow for conversation. Unless you think you know everything, and are completely certain that Bryan Adams and the Semi-Conscious Liberation Army, armed with an infinite supply of Tim Horton's, aren't planning to swoop south make North America safe for elevator rock.
                      I mean, if you're going to reject ideas based upon raw stupidity, the TSA (go, W!) makes as much sense as a wall on the northern border.

                    • No, I'm saying that, when someone proposes an idea that is absurd, and you're in office, you should at least allow for conversation.

                      So then at what point are you allowed to have an opinion? If someone says "hey, we haven't had any trouble from Germany in the past 70+ years but they were behind the holocaust, maybe we should nuke 'em from orbit on Tuesday just to be on the safe side", you can't say that would be a generally awful idea?

                      Unless you think you know everything, and are completely certain that Bryan Adams and the Semi-Conscious Liberation Army, armed with an infinite supply of Tim Horton's, aren't planning to swoop south make North America safe for elevator rock.

                      You don't need to know everything. You just need to know that it would be an impossible engineering project with no benefits (unless you consider complete and total bankruptcy of the nation to be a bene

                    • So then at what point are you allowed to have an opinion?

                      Oh, I don't know. Maybe the 1st Amendment? You've certainly exercised it in this JE, as I have in calling you for having twisted Scott Walker's words. Which original point you seem most anxious to avoid discussing.

                    • So then at what point are you allowed to have an opinion?

                      Oh, I don't know. Maybe the 1st Amendment?

                      But you just said that your politicians cannot have opinions. Please stick to one answer.

                    • "Which original point you seem most anxious to avoid discussing."
                    • The original point is that a wall between the US and Canada is insane, period. There is no good reason to build one, and many good reasons not to. You keep steering the discussion in different directions to avoid discussing the topic. It would be fun to go back and see how many questions I have asked you in this discussion that you have avoided answering, but I have more important things to do with my time this morning.

                    • The original point is that a wall between the US and Canada is insane, period.

                      Words like "insane" and "depressed" have specific medical connotations. Were Walker truly cuckoo for cocoa-puffs, I daresay he'd not be campaigning for POTUS.
                      If you're incapable of admitting the fact that you've done a propaganda job on Walker's words, then let's just declare the thread over.
                      In fact, you get the last word, as I shan't reply further sir.

                    • The original point is that a wall between the US and Canada is insane, period.

                      Words like "insane" and "depressed" have specific medical connotations

                      You're half-wrong, there. Insanity is a legal term with no medical definition. [thefreedictionary.com]

                      In fact, you get the last word, as I shan't reply further sir.

                      If you would spend more time actually participating in a discussion, and less time seeking ways to declare victory, we might get somewhere here.

                    • Per Wikipedia, "Insanity is no longer considered a medical diagnosis but is a legal term in the United States [wikipedia.org]". So, as long as we're buying off on American Exceptionalism, I guess we can support your point.
                    • Didn't you in an earlier comment today [slashdot.org] claim

                      I shan't reply further sir.

                      And now you're back. We are still quite some distance from the topic of the JE here, though. Not only is the wall a terrible, terrible, economy-destroying, international-relations-suicidal, no-good, awful idea, but we can also note that the Kevlar Kandidate is currently in political free-fall in Iowa [scribd.com].

    • I went straight to "crazy like a loon" before I'd even finished reading the BBC article.

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Close