damn_registrars's Journal: Why conspiracies won't be detracted by their certain failure

In the matter of the array of anti-Obama conspiracies, the simple fact at this point is that January 20 2017 is less than 400 days away. The glass-half-full side of the conspiracy buffs should be celebrating at this point as it means they are that much closer to the end of the administration. Naturally, the glass-half-empty side of the same group is angry because they realize they cannot reduce that number any quicker through action than through waiting out the clock.

The fact of the matter though is that the conspiracy crowd wins either way. When President Lawnchair leaves office the conspiracy buffs will tell us about all the conspiracies that were not "investigated" and how they are indication of terrible things that could have happened.

You need to get out more

[smittyoneeach]

#OccupyResoluteDesk is old news. And, just as the CIA interrogators were never prosecuted, no Constitution-loving American is going to abide seeing losing an election turned into a witch hunt, irrespective of how much it would excite certain degenerates.
The real threat is Her Majesty and a continued decline into the Eurotoilet. But hey: bark on, carnival man.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Eurotoilet

I guess you prefer the Wall Street toilet, which is really where the country is being taken... I'm afraid your Hillary is a threat to no one that is already in the business. After all, she really is just an old time moderate republican. Let's see what her taste in interns looks like before we condemn her. She might be the first president on record to give out blow jobs. On that note, I shall let you and d_r continue on with your masturbatory exercises. Enjoy

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Given that Her Majesty is every bit the creature of Goldman Sachs that #OccupyResoluteDesk ever hoped to be, you should be strangely comfortable with the Wall Street commode.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Well, that would assume that, like you, I vote for these people. You and your friends are quite presumptuous in that regard. I suppose it is necessary for propping up your narrative and preconceptions, so I understand. As far as being comfortable with the 'Wall Street commode', you are once again projecting your own values, which for some reason, you appear to be ashamed of, thus in denial, kinda like that "other thing"... to which you will now feign ignorance. You can see Rubio's complaint on Meet the Pres

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I confess that, in my haste, I thought you were damn_registrars.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Yeah well, when you're a hammer...

I have to admit a tiny bit of admiration for your (and his) single mindedness. You spread it far and wide.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Live free or die, baby.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

If all you're going to do type out clichés that you really don't believe in, at least make a feeble effort to come up with something original...

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're at peak cuteness when you're telling me what I do and do not believe.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

I'm not telling you anything. You yourself spell out perfectly clearly what you believe. I thought I would share with the viewers. You do your little "liberty" dance there, yet you always leave out the "for all" part. The only mystery is of course, why the denial? What are you so ashamed of? This goes far beyond the political, into the psychological. Go see your doctor. He/she might be able to refer you to somebody.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're doing a fine job of sustaining the cuteness when you attempt to draw a distinction between "liberty" and "liberty for all". That's in the same vein of the idiots out there finding a difference between "justice" and "social justice". Whenever someone is taking a simple concept and trying to tart it up, there is typically an agenda afoot. Beware.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You are the one making the distinction. You have specifically indicated that some people have more rights than others. You are simply deflecting with your silly semantics.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

What's ironic is that your effort to deliver false equivalencies is as specious as your "liberty" vs. "liberty for all" effort. You'll as soon deliver offspring by planting your seed in someone's colon. But hey: insanity is your right, and I wouldn't abridge liberty to stop it.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Again, it is you making the distinction. For me liberty always means liberty for all, for you it doesn't. What could be easier to understand? Face it, your schtick doesn't work with me. It only illustrates bigotry. Either you are for liberty (for all) or you are against it. And so far, you have stated that you are against it, despite your feigned protestations to the contrary.

And again the obsession with the orifice. What is up with that?? It's so weird! You should try to focus on people instead and not jus

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

For me liberty always means liberty for all, for you it doesn't.

What do you mean. Cite a specific instance where I have directly, myself, denied anyone any liberty. You can't, because I haven't. You seem to view my inability to accept your Progressive Faith as heterodox, while not seeing that you're denying me the liberty of dissent, because I cannot agree to your definition of a symbol.
And yet you're patting yourself on the back for being all about liberty. Hypocrite.

Ah, but you would, and you are trying.

Trying, how? Be specific. Other than maintaining a dissenting opinion, what thoughtcrime have I commit

Re:

[fustakrakich]

turning liberty into privilege, something else I like watching you deny, which I expect to hear in your next post

Cite a specific instance where I have directly, myself, denied anyone any liberty. You can't, because I haven't.

Right on cue! Still trying to get me to run the circle one more time, eh? Your attempt to delegitimize homosexual relationships and women's rights are there for all to see. So, yes, your idea of liberty is culturally defined. In the real world, you are defining privilege.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Your attempt to delegitimize homosexual relationships and women's rights are there for all to see.

I'll be raising my sons to understand that form follows function. I support and defend your right to delegitimize simple common sense, and will go so far as to forgive your intolerance of my right to disagree. Because you know the intolerant one here is you.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

You are more than welcome to raise your children and disagree with me as you wish. You never ever heard me deny that, but I will always insist on equal legal rights and liberty for all. Are you going to do like d_r and lie about me also?

I really do enjoy watching you euphemise plain old bigotry. I do hope your children will see through the facade, the earlier the better.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

euphemise plain old bigotry

The cool part on my end is watching you misapply faulty analysis. Homosexuality and abortion are united in their nihilistic quest to make the false somehow true. Yet I doubt the Almighty will be impressed. I could be wrong.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Homosexuality and abortion are united in their nihilistic quest to make the false somehow true.

Yeah yeah yeah, just like being black or a woman... Sorry, you're just rationalizing the same old bigotry of ancient times. You have changed nothing but the target. In truth, you express fear, of losing dominance. You find equality to be oppressive and thus lash out, crying about "demographic cratering" and "hedonism" and other such nonsense. You know, the psych textbooks are full of cases like yours. In fact, I f

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You project masterfully from your privileged place of absolute certainty.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Sure thing, kid

Re:

[damn_registrars]

no Constitution-loving American is going to abide seeing losing an election turned into a witch hunt

You have most certainly abided seeing your party spearhead a witch hunt. Are you therefore saying you are indeed not a "Constitution-loving American"? There is no doubt you admire some parts of the document more than others, but perhaps you do not actually love it at all?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Excuse me? Are you implying someone would be brought to trial? Whom?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

no Constitution-loving American is going to abide seeing losing an election turned into a witch hunt

You have most certainly abided seeing your party spearhead a witch hunt. Are you therefore saying you are indeed not a "Constitution-loving American"? There is no doubt you admire some parts of the document more than others, but perhaps you do not actually love it at all?

Excuse me? Are you implying someone would be brought to trial? Whom?

Since when did witch hunts involve trials? You'd be hard pressed to find someone who would consider the Salem Witch Trials to be an acceptable form of trial today.

Although considering how you have already shown general disdain for the justice system, perhaps to you the Salem Witch Trials would be an acceptable resolution for your witch hunt?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Since when did witch hunts involve trials? You'd be hard pressed to find someone who would consider the Salem Witch Trials to be an acceptable form of trial today.

I repeat. There will be no trial. This is understood by all participants. It's as though you're pining after one in your passive-aggressive way.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Since when did witch hunts involve trials? You'd be hard pressed to find someone who would consider the Salem Witch Trials to be an acceptable form of trial today.

I repeat. There will be no trial.

We agreed on the conclusion a while back that you aspire to circumvent the constitution and its protections in order to drive out your desired witches.

It's as though you're pining after one in your passive-aggressive way.

I am fond of that old-fashioned notion of justice, where guilt is determined not by a bunch of partisan hacks who hate you for the letter after your name but rather by people who can be objective with the evidence and provide a fair trial. I am also fond of grand juries who evaluate the merit of said evidence and are entrusted with the right to declare the

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

There will be no justice. There will be a one-day trial in the court of public opinion the first Tuesday in November, 2016.
If Her Majesty is crowned, you'll be crowing. If not, you'll whinge on most tediously.

you aspire to circumvent the constitution

As though you ever gave a flying fascist fornication for the document.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

There will be no justice.

Don't pretend you were ever interested in actual justice. You made it clear early on that was never a goal.

There will be a one-day trial in the court of public opinion the first Tuesday in November, 2016.

I would be astonished if you actually stopped with your anti-Obama conspiracies at that point. Frankly I would be surprised if you even stopped with them after January of 2017. You still propagate your favorite ones today, fully aware that they have no ability to end the Lawnchair Administration regardless of how awful you perceive them to be.

you aspire to circumvent the constitution

As though you ever gave a flying fascist fornication for the document.

So now you are accepting the fact that you are intenti

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Don't pretend you were ever interested in actual justice.

So you're calling me a liar, in passing, then? Let's be crystal clear, as I've said repeatedly: Her Majesty is above the law. Her brush with actual justice will come when she meets the Almighty. May He have mercy.

fully aware that they have no ability to end the Lawnchair Administration

I have said that #OccupyResoluteDesk, like Her Majesty, is above the law. His brush with actual justice will come when she meets the Almighty. May He have mercy. Had you beyond cursory knowledge of the Almighty and the Word, you'd know that your conspiracy/revenge fantasies are wholly un-Christian,

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Don't pretend you were ever interested in actual justice.

Let's be crystal clear, as I've said repeatedly: Her Majesty is above the law.

You have more than once in your promotion of your endless witch hunt claimed to be interested in "justice" for the men who died in Benghazi. Now you have finally admitted that you were not actually seeking justice, so why do you support wasting millions of dollars and multiple years of time on this witch hunt?

fully aware that they have no ability to end the Lawnchair Administration

your conspiracy/revenge fantasies are wholly un-Christian, yet you insist on projecting them my way.

You have been promoting a large number of conspiracies against President Lawnchair. You harbor a great deal of anger towards him for no clear reason beyond the fact that he is not a member of your

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Now you have finally admitted that you were not actually seeking justice, so why do you support wasting millions of dollars and multiple years of time on this witch hunt?

Explaining the ideals which the country was founded upon to a degenerate is akin to describing color to the blind. Yet one can try: understand that, even though we've stipulated that justice is unattainable in the case of Her Majesty, we're not going all going to join you on the Foster Care plan. It is your Constitutional right to be Her thrall, but it is better to go down like the heroes of Benghazi did, under fire, than join the blind wretches in Her Service. Hard to tell why you're so happy with your arr

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Now you have finally admitted that you were not actually seeking justice, so why do you support wasting millions of dollars and multiple years of time on this witch hunt?

Explaining the ideals which the country was founded upon to a degenerate

And a very Merry Christmas to you as well, sir. I thought perhaps we were going to try to get through the holidays without such silly insults but apparently you had other ideas.

even though we've stipulated that justice is unattainable in the case of Her Majesty, we're not going all going to join you on the Foster Care plan

Please explain further what you mean by this. What is this "Foster Care" plan you are talking about here?

It is your Constitutional right to be Her thrall, but it is better to go down like the heroes of Benghazi did, under fire

I do not see anything the least bit heroic about your witch hunt. Frankly I see this as an insult to the legacy of the men who died in Benghazi to keep talking about them when you are wasting this time, money, and effort on

So much THIS

[smittyoneeach]

Frankly I see this as an insult to the legacy of the men who died in Benghazi to keep talking about them when you are wasting this time, money, and effort on a quest that you have already admitted is not sufficiently substantive to lead to your goals.

I think this is the acme of Lefty skill: to claim concern for an idea while shutting down discussion on the topic. Nothing could express your perversion more perfectly.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Frankly I see this as an insult to the legacy of the men who died in Benghazi to keep talking about them when you are wasting this time, money, and effort on a quest that you have already admitted is not sufficiently substantive to lead to your goals.

claim concern for an idea while shutting down discussion on the topic

I'm not shutting down anything, nor is anyone else. I am merely pointing out that continued discussion is pointless - which you have agreed with. You have no additional information on it, nor does anyone else. The additional "investigations" into Benghazi are nothing but witch hunts, you have openly admitted now that you don't give a damn about any kind of justice in the matter. We might as well be discussing Phlogiston [wikipedia.org] at this rate, there is more remaining support for it than there is for your favorit

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I am merely pointing out that continued discussion is pointless

How does that explain the big budget flick due out in a couple of weeks, then? Are you predicting that 13 Hours [youtube.com] (which trailer has ~3.7mil hits as I type) will be as stillborn as the typical lefty drivel? [wikipedia.org]
How about the deeper reality you can't face: Her Majesty is a lying Commie whose will-to-power is only exceeded by her own malice, which may yet prove Her Royal undoing?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

how does that explain the big budget flick due out in a couple of weeks, then? Are you predicting that 13 Hours

I will predict that if it sticks to only the actual facts, conservatives will shit themselves with anger because it won't be helpful for their witch hunt. If Michael Bay and company decide to incorporate conspiracy into it to try to bring conservatives into the theatre, the film will bomb quickly and they will be called out on it (though of course the media will ignore that out of fear).

Her Majesty is a lying Commie

The lie is yours, smitty.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I reciprocate your charge.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

The American spirit used to include equal protections of justice for all.

Yeah? When?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You just flat out lied in calling Hillary Clinton a Communist. There is nothing she has done that in any reasonable way approximates any reasonable definition of communist. There is more than enough to dislike about here that exists in reality, there is no need to lie about her.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

That should have been "about her", not "about here". My error.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

The American spirit used to include equal protections of justice for all.

Yeah? When?

The emphasis there belongs on spirit, not all. Notice also that it is spirit, and not system. Perhaps some consider it an improvement to no longer offer that faÃade...

Re:

[damn_registrars]

(and I should have known better than to allow firefox to autocorrect facade to faÃade, obviously slashdot can't handle that)

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

OK, let's point out that you're correct in saying that Her Majesty is not a Communist. Specifically, I'm sure she would find The Communist Manifesto as indistinguishable from a badly soiled baby diaper as I myself did.
Nor would I accuse Her Majesty of adhering to Karl the Fool's doctrines as a matter of Economics. I doubt Marx would be so daft as to casually close half the schools in the country [breitbart.com].
But let's be clear that "lying Commie" (what I actually said) is meant more in the Cold War sense of "all enemi

Re:

[fustakrakich]

First, turn off auto correct

Second, don't blame Slashdot

And this "spirit" you speak of was always extremely localized to your so-called fringe groups. That's why it was never systematic. It always was public relations. The American "spirit" that actually prevailed was one of (economic) opportunity, not liberty and justice, much less for all.

Now, let's see if anybody wants to address the fact that Benghazi was a highly sensitive weapons smuggling operation. And the "attack" was just a buy that went bad, thou

Re:

[damn_registrars]

So now we're back to your standard level of reality distortion where you get to twist and distort words to your pleasure, but others do not. Your sense of entitlement is astonishing at times.

Furthermore, incorporating in your continued lie about reading The Communist Manifesto does not do anything to make your argument stronger.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Second, don't blame Slashdot

I am not blaming slashdot for my accepting firefox's correction of facade. I am, however, blaming slashdot for continuing to not support unicode in any usable way. As mcgrew [slashdot.org] pointed out, a site that spun off of slashdot a while back that started with 2007 slashcode supports unicode [slashdot.org] even though this awful site does not.

The American "spirit" that actually prevailed was one of (economic) opportunity, not liberty and justice, much less for all.

You're funny, there. One thing that has never been part of the spirit in this country has been equal economic opportunity. Some have pretended to be interested in it, but none have ever

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

If you cared, we could resume the reading.

Re:

[fustakrakich]

Unicode is not necessary and has its own issues. Learn how to work around it, or ask for your money back..

And I didn't say there is anything "equal" about economic opportunity. Please refrain from inferring things that don't exist or weren't mentioned. Otherwise you are going back to that "other issue" you express frequently with me.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

In order to resume, you would need to first begin.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I most certainly began, and the evidence is right here on this site, and you participated, until you realized, I guess, what a loaf of crap it is. Why don't you begin being honest, and we can finish the slog?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

The only thing I "worship" is Jesus Christ. Are you saying you think Life's Meaning's a liar, or are you objecting to my assertion that damn_registrars worships Her Majesty, as a theological issue? (Note that he did not object.)

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Wrong.

You did fool me at the beginning when I errantly thought you were actually reading the document. Eventually you phoned it in enough to expose yourself as a liar on the matter, when in your last JE on it you spent quite a bit of time discussing someone else's review and no time actually demonstrating any first-hand familiarity with its text.

The dishonest one here is you, and only you. You set up a cute little trap but you've been exposed. You can't fool me on this again. You repeatedly have s

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Oooh, Nelly! I LOVE these moving double standards! Anything you say, no matter how outlandish, has to be replied to specifically or it automatically becomes incontrovertible law! Yet, anything anyone else says about you, if you think it isn't worthwhile to respond to, just becomes irrelevant junk by not being replied to!

I wish I could be important enough to live in your universe instead of the one I live in, it really sounds awesome!

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

if you think it isn't worthwhile to respond to, just becomes irrelevant junk by not being replied to!

Wait: are you accusing something on /. of being relevant?
More seriously, I regard the spiritual realm as a dimension orthogonal to the intellectual realm of the secular. That is, I don't have any expectation of "meaningful" conversation here. You guys are happening in the other dimensions of body & mind, (sure) but I find your utterances pretty much interchangeable with those of cartoon characters.
If you want to know why, prayerfully read the Gospel.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Religion (including yours) is a matter of opinion, so I cannot say that it is "lying" per se.

Intellectually speaking, I'd be dishonest were I not to admit that I could be the biggest hoodwinked idiot on the planet, along with a billion or so other Christians.

That would imply life has meaning, aside from reproducing itself until it consumes the universe.

I daresay that you certainly behave as though it does, writing in complete sentences using an alphabet and all.
The beings living out your point with pure honesty are the beasts of the field.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You seem to imply that "knowledge" == "agreement". It's almost as though you view The Communist Manifesto as though it were the Qur'an. Which might help explain the strange love affair the Left has with Islam.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Regret that the word "billions" offended you. It really added nothing to "biggest hoodwinked idiot".

the denial that we are all the same

I would rejoice if you could ever show any occasion where I have not been in violent agreement with this assertion.

Your religions play directly and purely on animal instinct

Christianity, as far as I read the Bible, is about the proper balance of body, mind, and soul, so that the humanity achieves full blossom in Christ. But this is something which you are committed to rejecting.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

if you think it isn't worthwhile to respond to, just becomes irrelevant junk by not being replied to!

Wait: are you accusing something on /. of being relevant?

You just claimed two comments ago in this thread that you want everyone to cling to every word you write as if it is gold. The point here is the double standard that you cling to so dearly; claiming that your word is incalculably valuable and the word of anyone who disagrees with you is worth less than toilet paper.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Of course they are not separate. They are "dimensions" of the individual.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

My words are the toilet paper. The Word, now: there is something incalculably valuable. Certainly more than Marx's twaddle.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You seem to imply that "knowledge" == "agreement"

No, not even close. In fact I have stated nearly the opposite of that many times. I have many times stated that you are not required to agree with Marx's statements. However, you are lying when you claim to be knowledgeable of what is in The Communist Manifesto when you continue to proudly refuse to read it.

In other words, my problem is not your mindless and fact-less hatred of communism. My problem is that you insist on lying about your familiarity with it. You don't know shit about communism, bu

Re:

[damn_registrars]

My words are the toilet paper.

So then, to you, are the words of every slashdot user who does not agree with you the shit that your toilet paper cleans up? After all, toilet paper has value before it is used.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Well, that's one way to punt the analysis, I suppose.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You behave as if there is something to know of Communism. Marx is united with Mohammed in that both offer cheap knockoffs of Christianity.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Well, neither of us are being literal here. My point is that I'm not claiming to be more than a simple conduit for better knowledge. Your point, as is often the case, is elusive.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You behave as if there is something to know of Communism

That is a stunning new level of arrogance, there. Have you been agreeing with Trump speeches lately or something?

Again, it is crystal clear that you are proud of your intentional ignorance on the topic. You like to boast of it at every chance you find. I cannot force you to read up on what Communism actually entails any more so than I could force you to grow wings and fly south for the winter. I will, however, continue to point out that you are flat-out lying when you claim to be knowledgeable on C

Re:

[damn_registrars]

My point is that I'm not claiming to be more than a simple conduit for better knowledge.

If your words propagated fewer outright lies, you might be able to aspire to some day dream of trying to consider making some approximation of something near a vague resemblance of that claim.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I cannot force you to read up on what Communism actually entails

Nor can I coax you into keeping a simple agreement. You've got me in a prison of "I did not read it" (even though I certainly read a documented portion of it), nor will you explain what it is that you think I don't know about it. You want to talk about arrogance? Arrogance, thy name is damn_registrars.
You're just flooding your Huggies because I'm not playing along with your cheap game.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I don't lie to you, though perhaps I've been mistaken. I forgive you the false accusation, and ask that you forgive whatever perceived, inadvertent inadequacy has occurred in my communication.
We can take a break if you need it to give you time to walk back your accusations.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I cannot force you to read up on what Communism actually entails

Nor can I coax you into keeping a simple agreement.

I kept up my end of the agreement. You lied and then bailed out once caught in your lie. You almost certainly never had any intention to read the document, and you remain very proud of your intentional ignorance of the topic.

Why should it be up to me to fill in your massive knowledge gap? If you want to remain ignorant there is no good reason to believe I can resolve that for you. I will just continue to point out that you are a liar any time you claim to be the least bit knowledgeable on Communism

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I don't lie to you

That is wholly untrue. Here are just a few examples:

• Every time you accuse any living US politician of being a communist
• Every time you pretend to have read any part of The Communist Manifesto yourself
• Every time you pretend to have any understanding whatsoever of Communism

And those are just three big huge classes of repeat whoppers that you dish out regularly here.

false accusation

The one who is being dishonest is you. You are so seldom honest on those matters that it is hard to even remember the last time you made a sta

Down, Fido!

[smittyoneeach]

Calling someone a Commie an epithet. How are you certain that Her Majesty is NOT, in fact, a Communist? I'll agree that the probability is low, but you'll note she claimed to have tried to join the USMC [dailycaller.com].
How you can claim to judge the degree to which I read and understand Marx's Folly escapes me. From what I did read, Communism, like Islam, is just a cheap trap for the intellectually weak. The only actual adults who could slog through that vomit would be the sort of godless idiots seeking a wardroom positio

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I kept up my end of the agreement.

Check the JEs. The next installment is yours.

You lied and then bailed out once caught in your lie.

Now, there is a convenient falsehood.

You almost certainly never had any intention to read the document, and you remain very proud of your intentional ignorance of the topic.

Still waiting on you to hold up your end. But by all means, pick up again and put some veracity in your argument for a change.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Calling someone a Commie an epithet.

A silly, and immature, one at that. What exactly does one accomplish by the use of that epithet, beyond exclaiming how proud you are about your ignorance on Communism?

How are you certain that Her Majesty is NOT, in fact, a Communist?

Because absolutely nothing she has done in the past 30+ years resembles Communism in any way, shape, or form. Prior to that she wasn't any kind of politician, so looking that far back is not a useful indication of her intentions today.

How you can claim to judge the degree to which I read and understand Marx's Folly escapes me

You laid out quite well for us how little of it you read. You proudly gave us your analysis of someone e

Re:

[damn_registrars]

I kept up my end of the agreement.

Check the JEs. The next installment is yours.

No. You never started reading it, and you were constantly searching for more convoluted excuses to not read it. I know what it is about, you are the one who is wilfully and happily ignorant. The one who failed to keep up their end of the agreement is you, not me.

But I can't force you to learn. We both know that.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

All

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Your claims are refuted by a look at what was posted. But I realize that honest inquiry is not your purpose. It's almost as though you're more interested in Seinfeldian whinging than actually carrying through with an agreement. Was I putting too much effort into the formatting for your taste?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

What, specifically, do you find bigoted by the juxtaposition of ideas I think are a cheap trap for the intellectually weak?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Well, God, ultimately. But you reject that answer in favor an apparent lifetime of meaningless wandering.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Expect the same response to the idea of Christianity.

After the part where they nailed the Messiah to a cross, please explain what more brutal "response" is possible? After that, twaddle such as "Piss Christ" is chiefly offensive insofar as a taxpayer pocket was picked to pay for the insult.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Your claims are refuted by a look at what was posted.

Only in some strange world where "refuted" actually means "supported". Granted, some people have strangely managed to change "literally" into "figuratively", so I guess this kind of antonym / synonym swap would be par for the course at this point.

But I realize that honest inquiry is not your purpose.

So says the person who proudly refuses to read a book while calling themselves an expert on same said book that they refuse to read. I haven't figured out yet what your goal was in trying to get me to read it for you, though obviously comprehension was not it.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

If you've ever been on the ocean, you know that making way with a compass and rudder surely beats the naughty bits off of being tossed about.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I'm missing something. How does crucifixion breed a "superiority complex"? Or is that how you interpret simple liberty?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Is this some sort of endurance contest, to see which of us can endure the loop the longest?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You can exit the loop by just admitting that you are not the least bit knowledgeable on communism, and you have absolutely zero interest in changing that. Unfortunately you will find yourself back in the loop the next time you send off a lie that requires you to refute that truth.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Can you please state explicitly the difference between https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism [wikipedia.org] and however you define it?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Why would I pursue a religion that is so flaccid that it cannot make such an ultimate claim? Christianity is not like a bit of fashion that one changes with the season, sir.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

The problem is not there, but rather in the difference between what Communism actually is and what you pretend it to be. It was nice of you to link to a source that has some understanding of the matter, now if you would just bother yourself to actually read some of what it says, you might gain some understanding. Perhaps after that point you will be able to stop lying so incessantly about the topic and what it means.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

No, the problem is that your definition is somehow privileged, for reasons that have yet to be revealed.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Hey: making you feel justified is what this site is all about.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

No. The wikipedia definition is fair. Your definition - particularly based on how you use it - has no reasonable connection to it. Your strange definition of it shows that you have no practical understanding of it, and your repeat use of it shows that you have no interest in changing that.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Great. Perhaps one day you'll grasp that "Commie", "godless Commie", and "godless Commie sodomite" are all variations on the theme of "troll", and have no specific relation to a political party, philosophy, or whether any specifically labeled un-American, godless Commie sodomite personally adheres thereto.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

From a purely intellectual vantage, this may be a fair charge.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

So then why do you opt for the insult that shows maximum lack of understanding on your behalf? Why not just call them "non-conservatives" as that is all that the label means?

Up through the other day, when you provided the link to the wikipedia entry on Communism, you genuinely appeared to believe that you were accurately calling these people Communists. Perhaps I managed to drive you to take in knowledge against your own will? We'll have to see if it sticks or not.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You've wet a full-on Hoover Dam load in your nappy--this is the point of trolling.
The overarching point of referencing Communism is to point out the mind-numbing naivete of the adherents: you can have the proletariat own the means of production all effing day long: there is still an aristocratic cadre wielding control with an iron fist. You're a hopeless dupe if you can't see through the empirical wreckage of Karl's Folly.
In total fairness, whenever Christianity wanders off the New Testament reservation (

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Prayer does. Were the Almighty to decide to make some kind of magic gadget have real effect, I suppose a divining rod could exist. But I'm not sure there's evidence of such, and would be skeptical of the whole "Jesus the Road Show" thing.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

So you're telling us then that you can't seem to separate correlation from causation. Because of the fact that the largest countries who called themselves Communist collapsed and devolved into various single-party or single-person dictatorships, you believe that Communism can only go that way or somehow is designed to do that.

The fact of the matter is that Communism no more inevitably leads to that than does capitalism, conservatism, or whatever other "ism" you want to wrap your philosophy in this week

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

The difference is that in Communism someone who leads such a revolt is by definition breaking the system

These are what is known as useful idiots [wikipedia.org]. Again, the puppet masters will redistribute everything but power--and yes, that totally includes the GOP elite.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Ah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy [wikipedia.org]. You know that Job or "Why does it suck so much?" is thought by some to be the oldest part of the Bible?
It's a great imponderable. But the impression I get is that the Almighty just isn't on the same scale as we mortals. Really lousy things happen constantly and without explanation. The demand that God offer a bump-free First Class ride is answered at the end of Job, by the way, where God answers Job from the whirlwind and says (to paraphrase): "Sure. Go for it. T