Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Reality - Who Needs It? 20
Yesterday's bait for the conservative circle-jerk sure worked out well. At this point it's barely 30 hours old and approaching 900 comments. Hell, my comment pulled in 70 replies and a dizzying number of moderations.
Included in those replies, though, was a a genuine you-win-the-internet-with-that-hyperpolic-nonsense reply. Not that this kind of conservative nonsense is new here, but the enthusiasm with which it was shared - even this late in the discussion - was impressive. The new user behind this has written only around 2 dozen comments to date, the oldest dating to last August.
I will say though, he made me laugh so hard at his nonsense that I felt compelled to reply. So I guess he trolled me fairly well.
Included in those replies, though, was a a genuine you-win-the-internet-with-that-hyperpolic-nonsense reply. Not that this kind of conservative nonsense is new here, but the enthusiasm with which it was shared - even this late in the discussion - was impressive. The new user behind this has written only around 2 dozen comments to date, the oldest dating to last August.
I will say though, he made me laugh so hard at his nonsense that I felt compelled to reply. So I guess he trolled me fairly well.
Don't over-credit King George III (Score:1)
That's not hyperbolic nonsense, sir: that's history.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not hyperbolic nonsense, sir: that's history.
The hyperbolic nonsense lies in the amount of Konservative Kool-Aid (TM) that one has to drink in order to believe that President Lawnchair is some sort of absolute tyrant who needs to be overthrown violently. Similarly the very notion that there is an amendment in the constitution - written in code, no less - that is there specifically for the purpose of violently overthrowing the government is ridiculous. What the true meaning of the second amendment is, we may never agree on, but there is no good argu
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And I have never argued for violent overthrow against Obama anymore than David did against King Saul: precedent is an insect with infinite mandibles.
That all depends on one's definition of violence. You have repeatedly advocated for extralegal termination of the administration. Once you get the mob rallied you can't count on them not becoming violent.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What. Mob.
You've shown that you don't care about legal restrictions to your desire to throw out President Lawnchair. Indeed you have shown utter disdain for the confines of the law and gone beyond fully embracing discarding it for your intents.
Now, how exactly will you overthrow the POTUS after you run out of legal options? After having thoroughly made a mockery of the law, you will have certainly stirred up enough fecal matter to have an angry mob of like-minded people similarly excited to see an end to the r
Re: (Score:1)
You've shown that you don't care about legal restrictions to your desire to throw out President Lawnchair.
I can only assume that you're trying *yawn* to be *eyerub* provocative.
I haven't done this. You know I haven't done this. I know you know I know I haven't done this. You stay beautiful.
Re: (Score:2)
You've shown that you don't care about legal restrictions to your desire to throw out President Lawnchair.
I haven't done this. You know I haven't done this. I know you know I know I haven't done this
Sure, you haven't done that. Excepting the times when you very plainly have, of course.
For example, your top conspiracy theory Benghazi. The government has already ran an investigation into it, and you refuse to actually read the report from that investigation before demanding that another one be done. You demand more time and treasure go in to the investigation of something that has already been investigated, and your only justification for that is "because". You have no facts on it that were not in
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take your topical tap-dance as: "I got nothin'".
You made more sense when you went for the one-word replies. I just directly pointed out how desperately you perpetuate a long list of conspiracy theories without concern for the confines of the legal requirements for removal of the POTUS or even the calling of a grand jury. This has been the most glaring weakness of essentially all of your arguments for the past 6 years - it is utterly transparent that you will stop at nothing to throw out any politician whose name is followed by a (D), regardless of whe
Re: (Score:1)
The true meaning of the First AND Second Amendments is that the unit of analysis in this country is the individual, and AT NO POINT are we being absorbed in YOUR Rousseauian/Orwellian/Alinskian/Huxlean Borg.
You may get stuffed at your convenience, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
What the true meaning of the second amendment is, we may never agree on
The true meaning of the First AND Second Amendments is that the unit of analysis in this country is the individual
On the first amendment, I agree with you.
However the second amendment very explicitly includes the word Militia. What is unclear about it is how the concept of the Militia relates to bearing arms, or who constitutes the Militia. We should be able to, at the very least, agree that the word was included intentionally and not accidentally. Clearly we disagree on what the word means in relation to the rest of the statement.
Furthermore we should be able to agree that in no part of the text of the secon
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly we disagree on what the word means in relation to the rest of the statement.
May violence never find you; may your government never come after you; may your little happy land stay fully populated with peeps, such that you never come personally to grips with what's gone on in Cuba, or Venezuela, or Afghanistan, &c: I want your little bubble of non-understanding of the crucial nature of the 2nd Amendment to remain intact.
Re: (Score:2)
You've also told us how you feel about other people's interpretation of the second amendment. I think it's time you tell us your interpretation. Here's the actual text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
How do you read it? What do you see as being the relation of the term "Militia" at the front of the sentence to the rest of the sentence? Who do you see them describing as "people", being as in the 18th century only white men counted as people?
Take a moment to read the te
Re: (Score:1)
Now, statists get them a flag pole woody over the first 13 words. "Aha! Here is our chance to do with the Constitution what Satan did in Genesis 3*. If we can just introduce some ambiguity, we can disarm the population, like Every. Evil. Fascist. Regime. Ever.**"
By the way, I don't actually own any firearms. But I'm as reactionary as they come [youtube.com] about any pencil-neck rodeo clowns that absolutely cann
Re: (Score:2)
The two introductory clauses are interesting, but the ultimate 14 words form a perfect though, like a circle.
Do you mean a perfect thought? Regardless there is nothing perfect about the second amendment. Why did they mention the Militia if it was not important? That is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that is only one sentence; why is that?
By the way, I don't actually own any firearms.
I believe you have said that before. You probably don't remember me saying this before - and likely won't believe it when I say it again - but I actually do own guns. I don't believe that gun regulations need to be an all-or-nothing deal. I do believe, however,
Re: (Score:2)
That said:
I believe that what we are currently doing is not working and we need to try something else. I also believe that guns are a terrible choice for self-defense and we should do something about the mentality that tells so many people otherwise.
If there was any correlation between gun sales and gun violence, then the country should have already depopulated itself
There you go, making assumptions based on your own assumptions about me. Gun control means a lot of different things, and it does not mean they all have to happen simultaneously (or ever).
The fact of the matter is though, we have a lot of guns in this country. And they most certainly don't help to reduce our per capita
I noticed something once again (Score:2)
Why do so many right wing radicals (and supporting the 2nd amendment is in no way radical) insist on using, as they would put it, grocers apostrophe's? (Yes that was deliberate). There seems to be a correlation between far left and far right radicals and a lack of education.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do so many right wing radicals (and supporting the 2nd amendment is in no way radical) insist on using, as they would put it, grocers apostrophe's? (Yes that was deliberate). There seems to be a correlation between far left and far right radicals and a lack of education.
I believe one of the other popular - though seldom referenced - conspiracy theories is that the English Language is itself being hijacked by "the extreme left". Hence the extreme right has their own way of using (perhaps more accurately, abusing) the English language to somehow try to drive that point home. It's little difference from how they insist that various words have dramatically different meanings than those compiled in common references (ie, dictionaries), which they seem to believe to be also d