Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 47

More partisanship from you, there. You would accept "contradictory public utterances" from people with the correct consonants after their name.

Name them. Name. One. Go ahead

I'll go one better and give you two for the price of one (or none).

First, all the complete bullshit from your party about "replacing" the ACA. Every proposal we have seen so far has been at least a 90% facsimile of the ACA. Your guys are - as we already knew - just jealous that their own names aren't on it.

Second, the bullshit that lead us into the war in Iraq. The overwhelming majority of what was used to sell the war to us was complete fabrication. Remember Cheney's claim of how quickly it would be over, and how it was contradicted by reality? Remember how we were promised we would be "greeted as liberators"?

Isn't that what the FBI investigation is showing?

The investigation isn't over yet. It also hasn't commented on the timelines of those two emails. You realize that a lot of what goes through as classified information becomes de-classified some time later, right? Just because an email went through with information that was at one time classified does not mean it went through while it was still classified.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 98

You're doing noble people grave harm by juxtaposing them with Joseph Stalin,

I have never in my life encountered someone who hold their ignorance to be a flag to be flown proudly in the way that you do. Stalin was not a Communist, period. He was a cunning politician, but his interest was in power and not in the furthering of Communism. Even his predecessors - who were marginal Communists - warned against allowing his rise to power.

If you knew anything about Communism you would know that.

who is a proper existential example of what Communism inevitably becomes

That is nothing short of an outright lie. There is nothing inherent to Communism that brings about the likes of Stalin.

Keep pluckin' that chicken.

You don't know shit about Communism. You have repeatedly refused to undertake any serious study of it. You continue to proudly display your ignorance. What is it that you are trying to accuse me of, being knowledgeable?

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 98

Not that you would be able to understand their ways.

I daresay I'd have a 95+% overlap with their thinking. Because I'm substantially from the Anabaptist tradition myself. All of which makes your assertion funnier than the bulk of your twaddle.

It would appear that similarly to how you have on other documents claimed understanding without reading, you don't seem to have a grasp on what the Hutterites are actually about. Perhaps if you think they are kindred souls, though, you might accidentally learn something about Communism by reading about them.

For example notice that while absolute pacifism is a big part of their lives, so is shared ownership of basically everything. They show the benefits of Communism when it is applied to small communities, without the ugliness that is inherent in all forms of government when they grow to larger sizes. More to the point, communal ownership and direction is a core belief to the Hutterites. You cannot be a Hutterite in a capitalist system.

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 47

If only you had a shred of credibility to back it up... or even a single fact. You have yet to present one actual fact to support your allegations. Not. One. Actual. Fact.

Wait, so, it's MY task to present every atom of proof pursuant to Chappaquaiddick?

No. I never asked for all the proof. I would like to see at least one single fact supporting your claim, which so far you have not provided. Hence my statement of

Not. One. Actual. Fact

No, I think her contradictory public utterances are sufficient.

More partisanship from you, there. You would accept "contradictory public utterances" from people with the correct consonants after their name. But when they come from people with the cursed "D" after their name, they are justification for immediate extralegal removal from whatever post they might have or aspire to.

Show me an actual fact. You claimed earlier that classified information was mishandled. You have not given any facts to support that idea. You instead substitute your conspiracy of the week and insist that it is good enough.

you are carefully cherry-picking your way through the constitution to try to build support for a state of government that has never actually existed here

Can you re-iterate exactly what Constitutional points you think at issue here?

As usual, if you don't read it the first time - or first several times - I post it, why would I expect you to read it now? I'm not playing this game. You can go back and read when I posted it before or you can just stop asking for re-re-re-re-reposts.

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 47

You have no evidence even though you are calling her guilty.

Her Majesty's behavior screams: "We sooooo guilty,

That is some fascinating psychoanalysis, there. If only you had a shred of credibility to back it up... or even a single fact. You have yet to present one actual fact to support your allegations. Not. One. Actual. Fact.

Not when you cherry-pick your way through them and pretend that your interpretation of them is The Only True Reading.

No, if you step back and admire Her Majesty's mosaic of mendacity, you've got to admit: there goes one truth-free piece of work.

First of all, I was talking about how you are carefully cherry-picking your way through the constitution to try to build support for a state of government that has never actually existed here. The Founders realized that their ideals for the time would not be the ideals for all time, and that things would change in the future. Hell it would not be an irrational approach to their writing to say that they expected full rewrites to occur from time to time.

Second, what the fuck are you talking about? I'm used to seeing you change topics as a defensive strategy around here, but that is quite the shift. You didn't just shift from red to green, you shot all the way into far-UV.

I can only suppose that you're a minion of the Clinton Machine, based on your complete lack of perspective.

No, though your lack of perspective is showing when you level that claim.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 98

You don't need one single party for it to be partisan.

Aw, c'mon. That's akin to saying "All Democrats are godless Commies", which I don't begin to think true.

Why not? You insist on not understanding Communism, which apparently gives you free reign to apply your lack of understanding of it to whatever you want.

Or do you mean that to you some of them are theological Commies? Perhaps extra-scary Muslim Commies?

Interestingly enough I recently came across legitimate communists in my travels. Not that you would be able to understand their ways...

Comment Re:I'm not sure this is the right response (Score 1) 205

It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative.

WTF? You claimed that they 'may' have been under investigation, not I. I discounted that and you say I have to prove your lie is wrong?

Hopefully you wake up this morning with your underwear un-knotted so we can have an actual discussion on this matter.

To comply with the latest version of your request, I would have to be able to show now that there was an investigation started into AM before the hack was known. However, if there is an investigation underway, we generally won't know until charges are brought. That is the way many criminal investigations go; you don't want the accused to start running around destroying evidence.

However you are so full of piss and vinegar over the matter I expect that even if charges were announced tomorrow you would still be unsatisfied.

Do you see the massive difference there? Oh, I'm sure you had it before and were either defending your poor use if language or attempting to insist you were fine to assert my opinion for me.

I am not asserting an opinion for you. The fact of the matter is that Schwartz made a stupid choice and broke the law. You might happen to think highly of him regardless of it, and you are entitled to that opinion if you wish you hold it. Regardless he broke the law and deserved to face consequences - including a trial. I'm not telling you what to think about him. I'm sorry that you struggle so greatly to comprehend the written word here and that you find it justification to attack me.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 98

it is an argument presented by "leftists" and that only "leftists" use it. Hence it is a partisan "fallacy".

If there were a "leftist" party, then what you say would be true.

You don't need one single party for it to be partisan. You have shown that you view everyone who is not part of your party as being "leftist", which makes the allegation partisan as you make it impossible for this "fallacy" to apply to anyone who is of your party.

in the face of the current godless Commie sodomite infestation

The pride you take in your ignorance is staggering.

But that wouldn't necessarily be distinct from the GOP, which seems strangely comfortable with preserving Obama's lousy ideas.

If you are referring to HIIBA 2010 - and the fact that the GOP candidates all want to "repeal" it and then "replace" it with the same crappy bill with a different last name affiliated with it - you are getting close to reality but you have the chain of events backwards. The current bill - as we acknowledged earlier - is indeed the product of congress caving to the demands of the insurance industry and the Heritage Foundation. Why would any rational person expect that the republicans, having already gotten the bill they wanted through to law, would call for anything different in a "replacement" beyond the name on the bill?

And if you don't like my pointing out the obvious, then go read the book I cited back in July. You claim to be in favor of reading books, right?

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 47

Give it to me in a forthright manner, or keep it to yourself, please.

I have given you a very direct answer, multiple times now. You have no evidence even though you are calling her guilty. Your entire argument is driven by how badly you want her to be guilty, with no time or thought whatsoever given to the fact that the facts are still being ascertained.

The real distinction between us on this matter was clear a few comments ago. I stated plainly that if the facts supported it, I would come around to agree with the notion that classified information was handled incorrectly. You, however, will not accept the opposite - if no indication is found on the servers to support your allegation you will continue to declare her guilty.

That is a strange misstatement, there. You mean the ideals that you place in the founding documents.

No, the words are the words

Not when you cherry-pick your way through them and pretend that your interpretation of them is The Only True Reading. The words are there, but the intent is not always there. Furthermore as I pointed out earlier if you go back to only the founding documents you arrive at an imperfect nation that abuses certain human rights that are considered fundamental today. While our present state is not perfect either, the starting point certainly wasn't.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 98

If it is a strawman argument, then it is a strawman argument and does not need recognition as a separate "fallacy".

However, the wording you gave for your new "fallacy" specifically states that it is an argument presented by "leftists" and that only "leftists" use it. Hence it is a partisan "fallacy". In fact by proposing it you almost fall victim to some sort of weird reverse no-true-scotsman fallacy.

Now, if you are hoping that the guys who run that website are actually of deeply conservative persuasion, and have just been doing a good job of putting up a nonpartisan facade up to this point, proposing this "fallacy" to them may be a good way to validate that hope. However it would not be a particularly useful troll as there are multiple explanations for reasons why they would refuse it, which would prevent you from learning much from your failed attempt:
  • They could refuse it because it is stupid and partisan and their website is neither of those
  • They could refuse it because they are actually conservative but realize they would be alienating non-conservatives from their site if they accept it
  • They could refuse it because they are non-conservative and realize it is tasteless and stupid

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 47

In one breath you chide anyone for daring to hint at even a *smidgen* of wrongdoing,

That is a big leap you just made there, which leads only to you falling on your face. What I have called you out on is not at the suggestion that perhaps something wrong was done, but rather on how certain you are that something was intentionally done wrong in the exact way that you believe it to have been done. You have absolutely no evidence yet to support your allegations. Is it possible that your conspiracy could be supported by facts at some point in the future? Yes, it is possible. However at this point your conspiracy is based on nothing other than your undying hatred of her last name and party affiliation.

and just as quickly assert that all information has been fully divulged.

Being as you haven't evaluated the information on the server, and the analysis - which is presumably being done by people better qualified to analyze it than you - is not complete either, how can you be sure that there is more information than what has been turned over? As usual you have no shortage of conspiracies...

You must have confused me with a wretched loser like Michael Moore.

I don't recall him being a part of this discussion. Your kindness in your description of him is noted.

I still believe the ideals inherent in our founding documents are worth preserving

That is a strange misstatement, there. You mean the ideals that you place in the founding documents. There is a large chasm between those two statements. I could also point out that the founding documents - if you go back to the original signed issues - does not allow women, people of color, or people who do not own land, to vote. Do you really want to support those ideals?

system of government worth restoring from the godless Commie sodomite infestation.

You forgot Illuminati Atheist Islamist Martian Reptoids from Io. Come on, you wouldn't want to indicate we are being invaded by just garden-variety Commies, after all.

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 47

If she publicly admitted to having classified information go through her private email server

I'm sorry; we're talking about a lawyer.

Who hasn't been licensed to practice law in how long? Sure, she practiced law after finishing law school, but that was some time ago. You can label her as a lawyer but that is not the most meaningful label here. We don't label George HW Bush as a CIA director when discussing him...

Please explain why you think she would admit to, well, anything.

The server logs and server contents have been released for analysis. You don't need her to admit to anything, the information will show if it handled classified information or not. You insist that it had, even though you have not a single shred of evidence to support that notion.

Nor do I think anything resembling "justice" will ever be applied to her case.

Then why do you keep expending so much energy into this conspiracy if you are so certain that nothing will come of it? You either don't believe that statement yourself or you really badly need a new hobby.

Whether the past eight years are enough of a cautionary tale to drive the electorate to resist Her Majesty.

What happened in the last years of the Bush Administration that should cause people to subscribe to your belief of Clinton being the Antichrist? I know you are fond of attributing every bad conceivable thing to Obama and/or Clinton, but you could at least follow a semi-logical timeline.

How much difference resistance will make in an era where one is inclined to wonder to what degree elections are just a joke anyway.

I believe you had a phrase that you were fond of when you were on the losing side of a presidential election that you told those of other beliefs... "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Feel free to go find democracies (or non-democracies) in other lands that better fit your belief structure, nobody is stopping you, right? I hear Somalia is exciting this time of year.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 98

It's not?

It is less than racism and oppression of the working class are fundamental tenets to the conservative movements.

However your belief that it is automatically makes your "fallacy" exclusive to those of particular political persuasions. Hence even if it were a valid "fallacy" - and it very much is not - it would not belong with the others as none of the others are exclusive to any particular group of people.

Basic is a high level languish. APL is a high level anguish.

Working...