Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Why start now? (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#47803697) Attached to: An honest utterance

you get to accuse me of having my own party

I do not recall ever having accused you of having your own party. I merely stated that you are very much a proud member of a party. The statement of "your party" does not indicate ownership, but rather membership.

accuse me of having privilege

What privilege are you accusing me of accusing you of having?

then accuse me of insisting that you are a member of some established party

You regularly accuse me of being a member of an established party. I could provide cases of you doing so but you won't read them.

I don't remember saying you were the DNC chair

I never accused you of accusing me of having any power within a party, though you have in that wonderful snippet of nonsense again indicated that you believe me to be a part of a party.

If you want an accusation, I think you're a defender of statism.

Considering most of your "isms" are based on peculiar new meanings of (generally root) words, I have no idea what you might be trying to accuse me of there. I would love for you to tell me what "statism" means to you, but I don't have any reason to expect that you will do so.

Comment: Re:Why start now? (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#47798131) Attached to: An honest utterance

"[your] own party". Think through the implications of that, please.

I love how you, again, discarded the overwhelming majority of the text of my comment in favor of your favorite snippet. Nonetheless, as much as you try to assign me to a given party - or to claim that Obama is somehow secretly a part of some grand political movement / conspiracy that is counter to everything he has done to date as president - you are at least equally as much a member of the GOP. You can pretend that the Tea Party is somehow distinct from them but we all know how that song will go.

And also, understand that I laugh at your every attempt to change the topic off of the disaster that is OUR President.

i wasn't trying to change anything. If anyone here is trying to change the topic it would appear to more likely be you, with the way you so carefully discard text that you find to be too uncomfortable to reply to.

Although when you say "OUR" rather than "YOUR" you get closer to the truth than you have been in a long, long, time. What Obama has actually DONE as president is vastly closer to the goals that you champion than any of the ones that I ever have. Why you keep claiming that we are femtoseconds away from some grand about-face - when you should instead be celebrating the fact that by and large you are getting from legislation basically everything you have asked for - is beyond me.

Comment: Re:Why start now? (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#47795113) Attached to: An honest utterance

You just don't like the guy pushing the buttons. You are making a fashion statement.

Really. Thanks. If BHO wants my support, a coherent strategy would be welcome.

One, why is a "coherent strategy" - or any strategy really - required only when the man at 1600 Pennsylvania is not of your own party?

And two, why are you pretending that this would somehow change your feelings regarding the POTUS?

Comment: Why start now? (Score 1) 22

by damn_registrars (#47787085) Attached to: An honest utterance
We haven't had strategies for decades, why start now? The only difference is this time we're lobbing missiles first, before committing boots to the ground. Last time we went on an adventure in Iraq we figured we could Han Solo the mission as we went along, and we saw how well that turned out. At least so far we haven't sent any ground troops to die.
It's funny.  Laugh.

Journal: Reverse Mod-bombing? 1

Journal by damn_registrars
Slashdot just informed me that recently 5 of my comments - all in different discussions - were up-modded "underrated". It seems an odd coincidence; perhaps someone had mod points they didn't know what to do with? (could it be related to this JE?

Comment: Re:Launching the NWO from the back 9? (Score 1) 25

Unfortunately, isn't this laziness vs. strongman similar to the ignorance vs. evil-genius dichotomy pushed forth under Bush II by his opponents?

You're missing the point. Smitty (and others) are trying to claim that Obama is somehow both incompetent and on the verge of launching the NWO, and they don't seem at all bothered by the obvious contradiction.

I can't speak for all non-fans of GWB, but I myself not once claimed that GWB was an evil genius or even of marginal competence. I and every non-fan I have ever met have consistently viewed GWB as being of extraordinary incompetence while being directed primarily by the puppetmaster Cheney (who took many orders from his corporate masters).

I have never heard a single conservative ever claim that Biden is somehow capable of passing down orders to President Lawnchair (or even competent at being a normal VP), so that parallel doesn't exist either.

Comment: And they're the LESS evil giant cable company (Score 5, Interesting) 133

by damn_registrars (#47764589) Attached to: Time Warner Cable Experiences Nationwide Internet Outage
I was forced (by moving) to switch from TWC to Comcast. I can tell you from experience that everything that is bad about TWC is at least 5x worse with Comcast. TWC fixed this in a matter of hours; if it were Comcast they would have billed the customers for the problem and it wouldn't be working until at least Monday.

Comment: Launching the NWO from the back 9? (Score 1) 25

Today you're trying to take the side of President Lawnchair not doing - or being capable of doing - anything. This is rather contrary to your assertions last week that Obama is on the verge of propelling us into a Fascist Nightmare state.

Or are you trying to bait me in to pointing out that Obama has not taken nearly as much vacation as his predecessor (which is actually surprising considering how much Obama borrowed his actions from the playbook of that same predecessor)?

Comment: Hero worship anyone? (Score 1) 39

Now, to give credit where credit is due, Reagan was (as far as we know) the only president we have had to date with the ability to shoot laser-deathbeams out of his eyes. This was undoubtedly a distinct advantage in negotiation. There is simply no comparison between that and President Lawnchair's unique strategy of consistently caving in to GOP demands.

Equally important though is the undeniable facts that
  • East Germany was never particularly stable
    • And
  • The Soviet Union was already well on its way to collapse before 1981 due in no small part to mismanagement and complete abandonment of anything vaguely resembling Marxist principles.

Comment: Re:Going for a triple (Score 1) 54

by damn_registrars (#47743773) Attached to: I must credit the president for being consistent
You are entitled to your opinion. However when you make up "facts" to support it, you can expect that I will point them out.

Furthermore you are entitled to have whatever opinion of me that you want to hold. It matters not at all to me what you think of me. I do find it interesting that you have such awful things to say about me and yet you keep coming back to reply to my comments and JEs. I cannot force you to reply to what I write, nor would I ever want to. I do wish I could succeed in encouraging you to read what you reply to before writing your replies, however.

"The value of marriage is not that adults produce children, but that children produce adults." -- Peter De Vries

Working...