Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Smitty's Corollary To Godwin's Law

Comments Filter:
  • How long does a discussion need to get before a republican will admit that there was a president George W Bush? He seems to be peculiarly absent from GOP discussions of much of anything, as if his administration never happened at all. He wasn't invited to the party nomination convention in 2012 and I don't recall him being there in 2008 either.
    • Who could forget BeelzeBush the Anti-Clinton?
      • If you're referring to GWB (and not GHWB), it seems that plenty of people have forgotten him. My question was at what point will conservatives remember him? Just because the non-conservatives point out that the bulk of what the federal government is doing currently is either something that he started or at the very least continued, doesn't mean that he is universally remembered for such. More than a couple conservatives seem to share a case of selective presidential amnesia, where apparently in their wor
        • Would it delight you if Congress went ahead an impeached Bush43 for Benghazi?
          Throw in a human sacrifice Easter Egg on the next large, unread piece of legislation, and you've got a recipe for real spectacle right there, you do.
          • Would it delight you if Congress went ahead an impeached Bush43 for Benghazi?

            First of all, let the record state that in this JE discussion, you brought up Benghazi first :)

            Second, there is about as much meaningful evidence towards impeaching any of GWB, Obama, the ghost of Reagan, your mom, or the easter bunny for Benghazi. Take your pick of any from that list and see what you can accomplish using the evidence you have provided thus far. Furthermore, I will go on to say that I don't support impeaching any of them based on what is actually known about Benghazi so far.

            Realisti

            • As you say. I do like "non-troversy", though. Totally fauxtrageous.
              • I do like "non-troversy", though.

                I cannot take credit for that term. First use I encountered of it was in response to the story that had slashdot's conservative base all up in arms about a kid having their lunch taken away at school by some bureaucrat. The story sounded terrible until we learned the truth that the kid's was offered some additional food from the school lunch line and never had their lunch taken away - hence it was a "non-troversy".

      • Anybody who has actually noticed that Obama is Bush's evil twin?

  • Blaming Wilson for everything is perfectly ok. Well, like Wilson, Bush simply put in some very regrettable policies which we will suffer for a very long time. Obama's major issue is the continuation and expansion of these policies and those from his predecessors. Feel free to use him as your new Godwin as you blame him for every failure the country experiences from here on out. These policies are his policies now, not Bush's or anybody else's. Your faction (sect) still has yet to offer up anything better.

    • Wilson planted the seeds. You can even try to be an apologist and ascribe swell intent.
      What you can't, after a century, is defend the bi-partisan collapse into a pathetic and sad little tyranny. I hope they go ahead and pass the debt ceiling increase in advance of any legislation being written, because Congress really has to work hard to jack up the farce factor in our government.
      Maybe, as an Easter Egg in the next fat, unread piece of legislation, they can give everyone a Krugmanerrand [theothermccain.com].
      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        a pathetic and sad little tyranny

        Like Mark Levin, you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what that word means.

        My wife, a patriotic naturalized American who grew up under an actual tyranny, could explain it to you if you had ears to hear.

        Amazing that all it takes is black skin to turn a moderate democrat into the worstest tyrant that the world has ever seen in history.

        Here, have a look for yourself. [businessinsider.com]

        Why do you need a "corollary to Godwin's Law" when the original is still so meaningful?

        • Sweet, sweet: "you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what that word means".
          If there is anything more boring in this day than having somebody condescendingly grab for control of definitions, I don't know what it is.
          • by gmhowell (26755)

            Sweet, sweet: "you don't seem to have a clear understanding of what that word means".

            If there is anything more boring in this day than having somebody condescendingly grab for control of definitions, I don't know what it is.

            Not to mention pudge and damn registrars already did that dance earlier this week.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            If there is anything more boring in this day than having somebody condescendingly grab for control of definitions, I don't know what it is.

            I'm not "grabbing control of definitions", I'm offering you that of the Oxford English Dictionary:

            Tyranny: cruel and oppressive government or rule: refugees fleeing tyranny and oppression
            [count noun] a state under cruel and oppressive government.
            cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control: the tyranny of her stepmother figurative the tyranny of the nine-to

            • Are you contending that we all have to wait until we are personally given the Nakoula treatment before we can formally label "tyranny" by its appropriate name?
              I listen to Levin occasionally on the commute home. Correcting for bombast, as he is indeed a radio personality, I still find him a reasonable observer of the situation. If Levin says "tyranny", I'm inclined to go with that until BHO does something other than emulate past tyrants, e.g. surrounding himself with children while setting about crushing li
            • Addendum: and if you want Bush under the bus too, because W signed the Patriot Act, albeit sans kids, I can provide you a toss with as much as a 100dB whooshing sound. The "Bush did it" chorus, too, is a bore. High time we did something peaceful and substantial about this tyrannical federal government.
      • Wilson cultivated the garden that was panted a very long time ago. You're grasping at straws, looking for anything at all to single out a specific individual.

        You can even try to be an apologist... What you can't, after a century, is defend the bi-partisan collapse into a pathetic and sad little tyranny...

        *groan* Still clinging to those old assumptions. I'm afraid the the "defender the bi-partisan collapse into a pathetic and sad little tyranny" would be you, as you continue to vote for party regulars. While

        • You may be correct. The well-considered choice of trying to get the GOP to put the reform where the rhetoric comes out may have been a waste.
          Nevertheless, that was the first iteration.
          • "Well considered"? Please... Not a great believer in precedence, are you? The standard Wall Street investment firm disclaimer, "Past history is not necessarily indicative of future outcomes", does not apply here. There is no incentive to change their behavior. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but nothing significant has happened. The course remains true and steady

            So, what's your next step? Gonna stick with your GOP/democrats (I'm sure you're aware that there's a new Bush in town, a shade d

            • Gonna stick with your GOP/democrats (I'm sure you're aware that there's a new Bush in town, a shade darker than the other two, which might be the media ticket for a horse race against Hillary in the next cycle), whine about wasted votes and "spoiler" candidates, and continue the cycle of destruction? Or are you going to push for something real and different?

              Hey, thanks for the binary choice!
              We know it boils down to $, don't we?
              Thus, among the first things that has to happen is reform of the Federal Reserv

              • Heh, funny as hell... you're still at it...

                "BHO" is a facade, a servant to those who finance (under the table) the position. So's your Paul Ryan (sure cracks me up that you still take his crap seriously... eh, just another sign you're still clouded by this what you call 'lesser evil' nonsense.)... And as in all cases, they either follows orders, or gets put out on the street corner. This will only change after you vote out the bling.

                • I've no strong counter-argument, I fear.
                  • What's needed is action, not arguments.

                    • Well. . .
                      Action, in and of itself, is just as likely to harm as hurt.
                      Having a plan, circulating it & gaining some consensus takes time, but mitigates a lot of risk.
                      There are sufficient guns and ammo in circulation that getting jumpy is a Bad Idea.
                      The good news is that the plan of What To Do is over 220 years old.
                      The bad news is that thieves have despoiled it.
                      How do you re-grow the notion of liberty, through the pain of weaning people off of the Federal Nipple?
  • In any peaceful discussion about Catholicism in which people are actually trying to figure out what the religion teaches and the relation to reason and science, the probability approaches one that some atheist troll will jump in with "All Catholic priests rape altar boys", in complete ignorance of the John Jay report. And will follow up with some inane comment about priestly celibacy, despite the fact that every single priest who ever caused a sexual scandal either did not take, or lied about their vow of

When you don't know what you are doing, do it neatly.

Working...