Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:There is a definition (Score 1) 5

by smitty_one_each (#47537581) Attached to: niwdoG

If you were only trying to say that they were using the word, then you would have been factual. You were, however, plainly trying to call them actual socialists - which is completely inaccurate. As I have stated multiple times now over the past several days, politicians can place whatever words they want in their (or their party's) description, but that doesn't mean they are accurate.

Oh, so, like your bogus attempts to call Obama "conservative", then?

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 32

by smitty_one_each (#47537567) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while

It is a false dilemma to say one is a doormat just because they don't protest or fight.
My opinion of the Bible and its teachings is that we are supposed to love and do good to one another, including our enemies. Instead of trying to bring down Obama or the Left or the Progressives or whoever, spend that time lifting up the poor and the needy.

The absolute best thing we can do to lift up the poor and needy is to promote policies (and by "policies" I mean the public law and governance that is religion-neutral in nature) providing equality of opportunity, not the equality of condition found upon the Progressive plantation.
Concern for the poor and the needy is something we need to do on an individual and church basis.
Among the hilarious conceits of the modern liars is that we have to have "separation of church and state", but then apply the doctrines of the Bible to social services anyway. Stay beautiful, please.
Rightly dividing the Word of Truth will show that "love thy neighbor" means your actual neighbor, not something involving a faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy.

Comment: Re:Two words... (Score 1) 3

by smitty_one_each (#47537537) Attached to: You Want Impeachment? Knock Yourselves Out
It is not exactly clear that Joe Biden's rodeo clown act would be relatively less talented than Pres'ent Obama's.
If your argument is that Biden is less of a spineless coward, and therefore more likely to make war on the Semi-Conscious Liberation Army thugs streaming out of Bulungi, then your case is not entirely without merit.
The better anti-impeachment case, I feel, is the one that says Obama's almost seemingly stoned detachment from reality, cruising around scooping up cash from rubes while the world burns, is the best anti-Democrat and anti-Hillary advertising available, albeit at a tremendous cost. #OccupyResoluteDesk's last two years of diaper overflow could crash the entire Progressive project, clearing the way for something like, which, carefully managed in a way the Affordable Care Act was not, could lead to tangible improvement for all races, creeds, sexual geometries. . .pretty much everyone.

Comment: And... (Score 2, Insightful) 224

And how much time was lost from (1) employees needing to learn a new system, (2) reintegrating email onto a new client platform, and (3) finding a new way to conduct patching. (Microsoft, for all their deficiencies, is better than its competitors at keeping patches up-to-date. I'm looking at you, Apple.)

I'm not saying that the move may not be correct in terms of dollars and sense, but please answer these questions before blowing sunshine up my ass.

Comment: There is a definition (Score 1) 5

by smitty_one_each (#47529585) Attached to: niwdoG's_law

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1"— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism.

I think calling someone a Nazi lands somewhere between lame and tasteless.
Help me out: how does pointing out that a symbol is an acronym comprised of other symbols, e.g. . . .

. . .constitute labeling comparing you to anything? The only thing you were encouraged to own (that is, acknowledge) was the literal presence of the symbol "Socialism" in the acronyms of both a political party and a country. Milady, thou dost protest too much, methinks. But that, at least, is in character.

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 32

by smitty_one_each (#47529567) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while
If you did not writer this reply below on the page, at least take this as constructive feedback:

Well, every time you (and not just you, but a lot of conservative Christians) protest against the Left or Progressives or wish somebody go after Obama or Congress or the Feds for all the illegal shit they do (and I'm not saying they aren't doing it), you are not following the Lord's word to turn the other cheek.

Some principles of Biblical analysis are:
(a) take the whole counsel of God, that is, every principle you draw should be in harmony with the rest of it, and you shouldn't be cherry-picking lone bits, merely because they seem to make a convenient point,
(b) take every utterance in context, the full who/what/where/when/why/how.
And so (you) make a good point that running around being vengeful is not in keeping with much of any of the positive message of the Word.
Also not in keeping: being a doormat, or tolerating injustice.
Is your opinion of the Bible and its teachings so simplistic and bloody-minded that you think, as a logical consequence, it should render human beings as doormats?

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 32

by Marxist Hacker 42 (#47526043) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while

"How many wars have been waged or led by democracies in the past 200 years? Quite nearly all of them. "

Or none of them. The ones democracies participated in, were started by dictatorships invading their neighbors. But even if you add up all the dead in all the wars of the last 200 years- you're still at only a fraction of the 56 million that we've lost to abortion in America alone since 1973.

"How many wars have been waged by actual socialist countries - not just ones who were playing with words - in the past 200 years? Almost none of them."

By playing with words, do you mean the ones who have actually claimed to be socialist? Plus, of course, socialism and democracy does have a rather strong overlap.

"Hell just the number of people that our democracy has killed in war in the past 15 years is likely larger than the total number killed by all the military actions of all actual socialist states in the past 200 years."

Hmm, larger than the 15 million Stalin killed outright? Not in war. But abortions, yes.

Your average modern war kills a few hundred thousand tops.

User Journal

Journal: niwdoG 5

Journal by smitty_one_each
Playing the Godwin card when the topic is really the meaning, ownership, and usage of the symbol "Socialist" (by, for example, the U.S.S.R) is really kinda l4m3.
Yet, strangely, in character.

Comment: Re:I by no means missed the point (Score 1) 32

by smitty_one_each (#47520961) Attached to: Funniest /. article in a while

Every week you give another example of where you ignore some of His' teachings in favor of others.

As someone who takes the Gospel more seriously than pretty much anything else, I have to ask for specifics on where you think I'm off course.

You are conveniently ignoring the fact that a political party - or a politician - can call itself whatever it wants.

Denying that the Nazis and Soviets claimed Socialism would be akin to rejecting Pres'ent Obama when he refers to "my Christian faith". I don't know precisely what he means by that formulation, to look at his record, but I have to own the fact that, by his words, at least his lips are "saved". I'm certainly lacking the divine database to evaluate the claim, and thus must take the Nazis, Soviets, and Obama at face value.

There is never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.