Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

damn_registrars's Journal: How Many People Behind One Account? 32

Journal by damn_registrars
This is not a call against multiple people using one account. If you want to share your username and password with others, go right ahead. You have your reasons. It has been stated before that there are more than one person using the red4man troll account. They manage to achieve a fair degree of consistency between themselves in a lot of what they do.

I now find myself pondering if there may be more than one person using the smitty_one_each account. Note that I am not accusing smitty of being a troll; however I am wondering if there is really only one. The variation in degree of insight between his posts leaves me wondering. Sometimes you can count on smitty for a reasonable discussion (which is why he is on my friends list) and other times he just wants to cite the new conservative dictionary.
This discussion was created by damn_registrars (1103043) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Many People Behind One Account?

Comments Filter:
  • I did change the password on the account, though one cannot disprove the possibility of having been hacked.
    There haven't been any "where did that come from?" posts, however.
    That said: what is your specific problem with the research and thought behind Goldberg's book?
    I submit that there has be a demonstrable shift since Wilson away from 50 States United towards A United State.
    Goldberg, for example, led me on a quest to figure out where that "Other" Bill of Rights came from: http://slashdot.org/~smitty_on [slashdot.org]
    • <i>That said: what is your specific problem with the research and thought behind Goldberg's book?</i>

      That question has already been answered. Just because the National Socialists had the word "socialist" in their name doesn't mean they are anything but the opposite of socialists.

      Similarly, the DDR was not what you'd call democratic, despite the name.

      Goldberg's other arguments are just as stupid, and you really have to know NOTHING to let them get by you.

      Therefore, trying to explain the problem w
      • OK, it sounds like you're playing a terminology game. Got it.
        • OK, it sounds like you're playing a terminology game. Got it.

          Nice troll. Subtle, it ain't.
        • You're a joke. Not your argument. Your argument is just stupid. But YOU are a joke.

          You don't even know enough to detect bullshit.

          • I'm reasonably well read in topics like the Constitution and history. While the Right seems sheepish more than a small amount of the time, the really mind-bending up-is-the-new-down stuff seems to come from the Left.
            Your tone seems that of the comic book villain at the climax, who realizes that the forces of good which he'd thought slain still have some fight remaining. Out of ammo, he's left to rant "Stupid FOOLS!" and vary that theme as he plays the get-away card.
            • There's nothing left for you but mockery. You're not well-read. You read only stuff that reinforces your world view.

              For shits and grins, go to a law library and read up on some real scholarly analysis of the 10th Amendment. Conclusion: it's unnecessary, was added as an afterthought, and nobody takes it seriously. For good reason. The only people making any noise about the 10th Amendment are those just as ignorant as you.

              • I think you will find that Agent Smith blew away [slashdot.org] his entire facade about two weeks ago, and he has been mocking us (since before that actually). I admit to having some admiration for his style. He knows how to incite a riot while remaining on the side lines. I took his advice and stopped taking him seriously quite some time ago. But I still love him. Real class act. Ignorant he is not. Sly is a better term I think.

              • Conclusion: it's unnecessary, was added as an afterthought, and nobody takes it seriously. For good reason. The only people making any noise about the 10th Amendment are those just as ignorant as you.

                Having read http://www.amazon.com/Americas-Constitution-Akhil-Reed-Amar/dp/1400062624 [amazon.com], I can report that your opinion is mostly jacked.
                It is necessary for the maintenance of Federalism.
                It was essential for the ratification of the Constitution in the first place.
                "nobody takes it seriously" is semi-accurate, as it has languished, especially since the Progressives came along.

                The only people making any noise about the 10th Amendment are those just as ignorant as you.

                Oh, come on, Mr. Madoff. I know you're a swell guy and stuff, but I'd just like to see some paper trail to back up your claims. Often

                • Obviously you missed the part where he presumably explained that the amendment is redundant. It's not necessary for anything, except to provide another point on which to laugh and point at you.

                  Paper trails are irrelevant. You can't read them anyway, and I laugh just as much without providing one.

                  • I, for one, love you and your l'etat c'est moi style of argumentation.
                    Possibly I'm brainwashed, having sworn to support and defend the document in a rather formal manner something like a dozen times in my life.
                    It's certainly true that "We the People" have been collectively asleep at the switch since Woodrow Wilson.
                    Whether or not it's too late to do anything about the progressively stolen milkshake remains to be seen. Those that hate America are going to find themselves under increasing, non-violent, pri
                • Damn, man! You must think we're all made of money. The way you pimp that freakin' amazon, I hope they supplied you with one of these [wordpress.com], with a chauffeur, youknow, one of them smiley guys with the big teeth. Since you're all up on this constitution thing, does it permit the government to maintain a standing army when congress hasn't actually declared war on anybody? Much less use that army for domestic purposes? I mean WWII has been officially terminated, right? Or are we still fighting World War I?

                  • Don't take my word for it: http://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html [usconstitution.net]
                    • Ah, very good. Then it seems that 1878 law against using it for domestic purposes, what's it called? Kama-posse something, posse comicus act, or whatever, is actually unconstitutional and should be written in as an amendment, kinda like prohibition against some drugs. You are against an unconstitutional prohibition, right?

                    • Do you think posse comitatus is unconstitutional, and, if so, why?
                    • My bad! You're absolutely right. I had read some stupid wiki that wrongly mentions a limit on the government, when upon reading the act itself, it appears to be congress simply reasserting it's constitutional authority that it alone possesses, in response to local officials or generals trying to use the military for the same thing...I believe...unless there's some hidden article that lets the prez do what he wants... Anyway, it appears that congress can use the military for domestic purposes or even possibl

                    • We didn't go deeply into it, but from my Naval War College course, the big deal has to do with who is the HMFIC.
                      National Guard troops work for the Governor. If they get nationalized, they come under US Army OPCON.
                      Who foots the bill for the troops is the other sticky wicket.
                      Regular Army units can be detailed to work within a state, e.g. for disaster relief, but they're almost certain to fall under OPCON of a state National Guard commander, and ultimately, the governor.
                      These are all fine points and minut
  • No offense meant, damn_registrars, but reading your journal is getting more and more interesting all the time...

    • No offense meant, damn_registrars

      None taken. You have to try a lot harder than that to offend me.

      reading your journal is getting more and more interesting all the time

      I'd love to know what aspect of my journal entries you are referring to, and what you mean by interesting.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Abreu (173023)

        Basically I find your struggle against slashdot trolls funny... kinda like the dutch boy putting his finger on the hole in the dam

"But this one goes to eleven." -- Nigel Tufnel

Working...