Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: What's your point? (Score 1) 1

by damn_registrars (#47538025) Attached to: Practical socialism
Are you just trying to shine a light on my grammatical error there? You certainly aren't making any points about socialism. Really, you're only continuing to show that you know basically nothing about it while attempting in vain to equate it with everything else you hate.

The most reasonable thing you wrote

pretty much any political system you can name is that power gets concentrated, corrupts leaders, and ruin follows.

Suggests that no political system is any better than any other. If that is the case then how can you justify running around encouraging hatred towards systems that you don't understand, when you admit that they are no worse than the system that you champion? If every system goes down the same pathway then you certainly have not given any reason to support your cause over any other.

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

by damn_registrars (#47537999) Attached to: You Want Impeachment? Knock Yourselves Out

They'd be giving Joe the advantage of incumbency in the 2016 election and if they didn't get Obama out before the middle of January of 2015, Biden would be eligible for two full terms plus the remaining 2 years of Obama's second term.

Perhaps my point was unclear.

Even if the GOP started impeachment this afternoon, they would not be able to remove the president before the end of his term, the process simply takes too long. There is no reason to fear the rise of a President Biden in the wake of removing Obama as it is not possible to remove Obama before January 2017. If you doubt that, take a look at the timeline of Watergate. Once the senate finally started a hearing it took over a year before Nixon resigned on his own - and formal impeachment in the house hadn't even begun yet at that point.

Now, if one fears an elected President Biden, that is a different matter (though the loudest conservatives I have seen as of late are all shouting that Hillary Clinton is the one they need to beat in 2016). But President Obama will finish this term, even if no legislation is signed in to law between now and the end of it.

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

by damn_registrars (#47537959) 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?

You have that backwards. Obama is a conservative by his actions, while the Nazis are socialist only by name. Just because Obama doesn't call himself conservative doesn't mean he isn't, and when the books are written we will recognize him as the most conservative president to date in our country. Now granted in 2016 we could elect someone like Rick Perry who is more conservative yet - and watch the world burn - but to date no president has been more conservative.

Nice distraction, there. The main point still remains that by action the Nazis were not socialists, and neither were the Soviets. Of course your bringing up the Nazis was just a distraction as well from something that you don't want to discuss.

Comment: Re:Millionare panhandlers (Score 1) 144

by drinkypoo (#47537697) Attached to: Cable Companies: We're Afraid Netflix Will Demand Payment From ISPs

A lot of the shelters are downright evil, though, especially the religious ones. A lot of them really push religion hard, and some of them won't help you if you don't spend an hour in church or whatever. Get 'em while they're vulnerable, then do just enough to make sure they receive your message.

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 http://conventionofstates.com/, 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: It doesn't matter which giant holds the power (Score 1) 144

Whether it's the ISPs or the big content providers: The bottom line is that eliminating net neutrality would cement the power structure and disallow smaller competitors to rise. It would essentially undermine the concept of free trade and equal footing for everyone to compete in a free market.

In the end, what would happen without net neutrality is that big content providers would have to pay ISPs. Either in form of protection money ("shame if anything happened to your fast pipe...") or in form of a bribe ("Ensure that this little upstart there gets 64kbit at best").

Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig. -- Lazarus Long, "Time Enough for Love"

Working...