Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

smitty_one_each's Journal: Let's call a troll a troll 125

Journal by smitty_one_each

We start here, where d_r said, emphasis mine:

Yet you don't seem to care for the Muslims much (as evidenced by, amongst other things, your repeated reminders for us of the scary middle name of the POTUS).

To which I reply:

This is a bald-faced lie, but I know you well enough now to account this as a straightforward troll. I defy you to show a single instance on the entire Internet where I personally have drawn a single derogatory conclusion based upon any portion of the President's name. A single one.

To which the response is:

In what way is it a lie? You just - again - told the Muslims that you believe they are wrong. You use the president's middle initial for what reason?

Now, I understand that the game here is for the liar to make an outrageous claim (previous examples included saying that I had called for violent removal of the President, or that I had plagiarized a website) and then continue to pick away until I lose patience with the idiocy on his end. A few rebuttals:

  1. FDR, LBJ, BHO, WTF?
  2. It's 1/26 of the alphabet. Dude, are you really into policing at that level? Can't we all pitch in and get you a life?
  3. Are you trying to contend that the Roman alphabet, itself, is the source of bigotry? While such would be outlandish, I am forced to admit that it's in keeping with your degenerate approach to argumentation.

I guess the only real regret I can muster is having ever read d_r in any serious light.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Let's call a troll a troll

Comments Filter:
  • by Arker (91948)
    He appears to be practicing rhetorical skills. When all else fails he'll just shift the goalposts. If you engage the new topic he'll shift again until he finds something you cannot rebut, while pretending that was his position all along. If you stop to point out what he is doing, he's still managed to shift the topic.

    • The crucial point is to manage the amount of time wasted. I have to confess I've had my fun contending with d_r. As long as we're all consenting adults. . .
    • When all else fails he'll just shift the goalposts.

      There were no goalposts shifted. Smitty switched from using his ridiculous hashtag to describe Obama to using his oh-so-not-clever TLA instead. I will also point out that Smitty has done this midstream before as well and similarly whined when I pointed out what he was doing.

      I would have been happy to stick to the original topic of discussion. I was pointing out in the context of discussing religion - and the disproportional representation of the same in our country - that Smitty has on many occasion

      • by Arker (91948)
        "There is no logical reason to call Obama "BHO""

        Sure there is, those are his initials. It's a fairly common way of referring to people, Presidents included. Many Presidents are more commonly referred to by initialisms than their full name. Smitty mentioned FDR and LBJ, and who could forget JFK? For some odd reason I never hear William Jefferson Clinton referred to as WJC or Ronald Wilson Reagan called RWR, but I have certainly heard people use initialism to distinguish the two Bushes - GHWB vs GWB.

        All in al
        • d_r is a troll.
        • Many Presidents are more commonly referred to by initialisms than their full name. Smitty mentioned FDR and LBJ, and who could forget JFK?

          What do those presidents all have in common? They were all presidents who were not the first with that name to serve in the white house - or in the case of JFK, not the first of the family name to run. You cannot say the same of Obama. Basically, "President Roosevelt" is not a unique name for a president as there have been more than one. However "President Obama" is, as there has been only one.

          For some odd reason I never hear William Jefferson Clinton referred to as WJC or Ronald Wilson Reagan called RWR, but I have certainly heard people use initialism to distinguish the two Bushes - GHWB vs GWB.

          It is for the reason I just gave. While some conservatives like to try to make political hay from Bill Clint

          • You're just trolling, but your mental gymnastics in the effort to justify your troll as some kind of serious argument are, it must be said, a hoot.
  • FDR,

    He was the second president with the last name Roosevelt

    LBJ,

    He was the second president with the last name Johnson

    BHO,

    He is the only president to date with the last name Obama

    WTF?

    Indeed why are you comparing them?

    It's 1/26 of the alphabet.

    Yes but you include the letter H to remind us that his middle name is Hussein. And we all know that name is scary enough to warrant invading a sovereign nation on its own.

    Are you trying to contend that the Roman alphabet, itself, is the source of bigotry?

    No. I am just pointing out that you and many of your like-minded brethren use the initials of Obama's name to incite fear. With you,

    • (a) what I say is true
      (b) truth is not a distraction
      (c) you don't often seem to handle the truth
      • A very strange way to walk away from your lack of logic, there. Declaring victory when you have been shown to be failing to incite a riot does not make one victorious. The matter here - as you pointed out in this very JE - is your selective application of the president's middle initial. You have failed to provide any reasonable explanation for why you use it at select times other than to stir up more fear and anger.

        If you at least used it consistently - rather than arbitrarily switching behind the unn
        • by Arker (91948)
          "silly nicknames that are vastly longer than his own name"

          My silly nickname for him is just his name. Pronounced with an Aussie accent. It's charming, really.

          Is there a particular reason why the ancient American pastime of making up silly nicknames for the President is objectionable to you?
          • "silly nicknames that are vastly longer than his own name"

            Is there a particular reason why the ancient American pastime of making up silly nicknames for the President is objectionable to you?

            How many silly nicknames do you make up for one sitting president? How many of them are intentionally chosen to stir up anger against that sitting president? When people called George W Bush "W", "Dubya", "GWB", or "Bush Jr", none of those were chosen to try to get people angry and rallying for impeachment. Furthermore none of them were chosen based on faulty assumptions of association with things that make people mad.

            By contrast, Smitty's silly hashtag for Obama is used to try to draw attention to a

            • by Arker (91948)
              To the contrary, "shrub" and "Bush the lesser" were intentionally demeaning nicknames used for a President that many of us did indeed want to impeach. I saw a lot of numerological expositions showing his name added up to 666 as well - I have yet to see anyone do that with Obama. Even if you are correct as to why Smitty likes to call him 'BHO' it's hardly any worse than the treatment of GWB.

              "And is there a particular reason why you refuse to use the quote tag or slashdot html formatting here?"

              I find it silly
              • Be careful, or d_r is going to use his Research Powers to find raaaaacism in your markup choices. :-)
                • by Arker (91948)

                  I wouldnt mind so much if it came out funny.

                  Frankly I find most racism discussions mind-numbingly boring at this point.

                  But Dave Chapelle [liveleak.com] is still hilarious.

                  • That is some primo ganja right there.
                    • by Arker (91948)

                      Dave Chapelle man, comedy genius. If you think about that sketch there are some really deep messages in it, but instead of hitting people over the head with them, he builds a sketch out of it and makes the audience laugh so hard it will stick in their head for the rest of their lives.

                      Trevor Noah [youtube.com] does the same sort of thing, with a very different style of course.

                    • The experience growing up sucked, but one must credit his making his career path of the experience.
                    • And then the climax. Recalls throwing on "Dr. Strangelove" for my German wife. I'd forgotten all the "heiling" at the end. You just don't do Adolf gags around Germans. They're never in good taste.
                      Surprisingly, she liked it.
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      Well he certainly seems to have made the most of his upbringing. He is eerily good with language. He did a better Aussie his first night on the continent than I can do after living there for 2 years. And did you hear his Spanish?

                      Then the climax. The Schwarzehitler. He should pass out 'napkins' before he tells that one.

                      "You just don't do Adolf gags around Germans. They're never in good taste."

                      I know what you mean. At the same time I subscribe to the notion that the most important role of comedy is to circumv
                    • Strong concur. Comedy should have a pruning effect on beliefs and relationships, helping them flourish.
                • ... and now back to our regularly scheduled racist baiting! I was worried you weren't feeling well as you hadn't accused me of that in some time.
                  • "find raaaaacism" != "racist baiting"
                    To say that anyone could find anything racist in a markup language is (I hope) clearly absurd. To the extent you're playing along with the absurdity: golf clap.
                    Probably shouldn't have to be that pedantic about matters, but you're easily the most caustic troll I know. So, yes, I do.
                    • I will show you a place where you have been consistent, smitty.

                      You have been consistent in your claiming of victimization at the hands of anyone who is less conservative than yourself. You have been consistent in your quest to get me (and likely others as well) to call you a racist. You have been consistent in your desperate attempt to claim that anyone who does not vote at least as conservative as the GOP line is somehow an Obama apologist / communist / Islamist / hater of America.
                    • You have been consistent in your quest to get me (and likely others as well) to call you a racist.

                      Maybe if your real name is. . .Charlie Crist [hotair.com].

                    • Smitty from not-very-long-ago would have realized that comment does not in any meaningful way address the comment that it quoted.
                    • The Socratic method can hurt, but do try to connect the dots here. You and Charlie Crist are both strawmanning in a big way.
              • To the contrary, "shrub" and "Bush the lesser" were intentionally demeaning nicknames used for a President that many of us did indeed want to impeach.

                Except that with Bush we were only allowed to call for his impeachment up through 9/10/2001; after then it was "un-American" to suggest that we consider doing such a thing to our "hero in chief".

                I saw a lot of numerological expositions showing his name added up to 666 as well - I have yet to see anyone do that with Obama.

                How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith.

                Even if you are correct as to why Smitty likes to call him 'BHO' it's hardly any worse than the treatment of GWB.

                We were only allowed to call for the impeachment of GWB for about 7 months. After that it was to the suggesting it could win you a one-way ticket to southern Cuba.

                • by Arker (91948)
                  "Except that with Bush we were only allowed to call for his impeachment up through 9/10/2001; after then it was "un-American" to suggest that we consider doing such a thing to our "hero in chief"."

                  And on what grounds could he have been impeached prior to that 11 September?

                  "How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith."

                  I am afraid I lack context to make a judgement on that. I know one of my favorite Professors
                  • "Except that with Bush we were only allowed to call for his impeachment up through 9/10/2001; after then it was "un-American" to suggest that we consider doing such a thing to our "hero in chief"."

                    And on what grounds could he have been impeached prior to that 11 September?

                    The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.

                    "How far distant is that from smitty calling Obama a "godless commie bastard"? Seems pretty equal in terms of the magnitude of the leap of faith."

                    I am afraid I lack context to make a judgement on that. I know one of my favorite Professors back in the day was actually a godless commie bastard and I told him that frequently, so it doesnt sound so bad to me.

                    We could evaluate that term word-for-word:

                    • Godless - Obama attends church so this makes no sense
                    • Commie - Obama is, beyond any remote shadow of a doubt, 100% not a commie
                    • Bastard - Obama was, actually, born to unwed parents. So if you want to use that definition of bastard, then this is true.

                    In other words, at least 1 of the three is accurate, the other 2 are utter bullshit.

                    "We were only allowed to call for the impeachment of GWB for about 7 months. After that it was to the suggesting it could win you a one-way ticket to southern Cuba."

                    Well I was doing it and I have not been rendered or droned yet.

                    There was a

                    • by Arker (91948)
                      "The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama."

                      In that case it should be very easy for you to name one.

                      Please try to make it one of, if not the, strongest you can come up with. Just to save time.

                      "Godless - Obama attends church so this makes no sense"

                      What on earth does attending church have to do with G_d?

                      "So then are you doing something more than just high-fiving conservatives on slashdot?"

                      I've been consciously trying to save the R
                    • The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.

                      Given the overall lust for power of anyone cruising at federal government altitude, they'd have impeached Bush if they had any solid basis for doing so.
                      You seriously think that St. Albert of Gore would've held back on iota, after being denied the chance to re-write election rules in Florida? Really? Al would've hanged Bush's honor from a tree in Chad, if he could. (SWIDT?)
                      It's easy enough to argue that Bush was another dot in our national arc of failure, along with Obama. Take the TSA. To the Mariana Tren

                    • The grounds for impeaching GWB prior to 9/11 were at least as valid as any grounds presented to date for impeaching Obama.

                      Given the overall lust for power of anyone cruising at federal government altitude, they'd have impeached Bush if they had any solid basis for doing so.

                      They passed on it out of the baseless optimism that not even someone as incompetent as Bush, paired with someone as cold-hearted as Cheney, could ruin the economy that was developed in the 90s. Had they known how wrong their hopes were, they would have gone ahead with impeaching Bush in February 2001.

                      But don't expect me to believe that the Democrats would've hesitated an eyeblink to impeach him, as early as taking Congress in 2006

                      The Democrats could not impeach Bush in 2006, as they had no spine with which to do it. Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists

                    • Hilarious! "Baseless optimism"

                      Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists!!!!!" or "sit down, you un-American scum!!!!". The Democrats were unwilling to respond to such accusations and gave up everything they aspired to any time they came up.

                      Did. They. Have. The. Grounds. Or. Did. They. Not. Have. The. Grounds. For. Impeachment?

                      It isn't about mercy, it's about cowardice.

                      Utter dreck. If they were cowardly, they would not have rammed through ObamaCare on a party-line vote.
                      Dude, I was going to recommend a career in standup for you, but now I'm thinking you're better off on Slashdot with your pathetic false-accusation gig.

                    • Every time the Democrats dared to criticize Bush, the response from congress was either "you're helping the terrorists!!!!!" or "sit down, you un-American scum!!!!". The Democrats were unwilling to respond to such accusations and gave up everything they aspired to any time they came up.

                      Did. They. Have. The. Grounds. Or. Did. They. Not. Have. The. Grounds. For. Impeachment?

                      They had at least as much ground for impeachment as are found in any of the conspiracy theories that you dedicate so much time and energy to championing. They just lacked the stones to actually push any of them.

                      It isn't about mercy, it's about cowardice.

                      Utter dreck. If they were cowardly, they would not have rammed through ObamaCare on a party-line vote.

                      Don't be stupid on this one. Every single "alternative to obamacare" that you have excitedly posted here on slashdot has been 90% carbon copied from the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, with a few extra bits thrown in to make the law even more insanely profitable for the industry th

                    • Don't be stupid on this one. Every single "alternative to obamacare" that you have excitedly posted here on slashdot has been 90% carbon copied from the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010, with a few extra bits thrown in to make the law even more insanely profitable for the industry that own both parties. There was nothing "rammed through". Your guys were allowed to vote against it only once their owners realized that they had enough votes for it by forcing all the democrats to vote for it (even though it was based on what you already showed was written by the conservative heritage foundation).

                      I was at the Kill the Bill protest. It was completely rammed through. Nancy wanted to "deem" the Affordable Care Act passed, and then didn't want a proper vote for which Representatives would be personally accountable for what they did. You're completely ignorant on this one, and I recommend you cease soiling yourself here. Unless you're really into that sort of thing. George Will recently reviewed some of the parliamentary skullduggery [washingtonpost.com] surrounding this one, if you're inclined.

                    • I was at the Kill the Bill protest.

                      And what is that worth? Nothing. What are you going to replace it with? The same crap that's already in the bill. Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.

                      It was completely rammed through.

                      I know you love to reach in to the Official GOP Verbage Bin to describe processes that have outcomes that are less than 200% favorable for your party, but think about this for a minute in a logical way. Every proposal that has come from the GOP to

                    • 1988?

                      I was 13, so don't really remember that one -- but Bush ran away with the Nomination. Were you a Buchanan guy?
                    • by Arker (91948)
                      Paul/Marrou [wikipedia.org] actually.
                    • Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.

                      Genuinely unsure of this assertion, sir. As with Trey Gowdy's Benghazi commission, the secret to improvement is sweeping aside the no-talent rodeo clowns who've jacked things up thus far, and their debris with them.

                      Your party has not proposed anything different and seeks just to have their own name on the same pile.

                      This is true only in your rhetorical universe, sir.

                      You even managed to find an article at the Heritage Foundation where they admitted that this bill reflects what they wanted from "reform".

                      Your free-range distortions really couldn't debase your non-existent validity any further, so, soil yourself!

                    • Killing the bill doesn't accomplish anything unless it results in replacing the bill with something better; going back is the only thing worse.

                      Genuinely unsure of this assertion, sir.

                      Smitty you have shared links to a variety of "obamacare alternatives". The only ones you have shared that were actually from anyone in an elected position had no significant differences from the current law.

                      the secret to improvement is sweeping aside the no-talent rodeo clowns who've jacked things up thus far

                      ... and right back to 100% fail you go.

                      Your party has not proposed anything different and seeks just to have their own name on the same pile.

                      This is true only in your rhetorical universe, sir.

                      I happen to live in the universe that this planet resides in. You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.

                      You even managed to find an article at the Heritage Foundation where they admitted that this bill reflects what they wanted from "reform".

                      ...

                      Go back to your JE where you brought up th

                    • You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.

                      No amount of mental gymnastics on your part, or anyone else's, can make federal over-reach into a good idea. Which is where the GOP is likely going to destroy itself. No amount of polish can un-turd the Progressive Project.

                    • You, sir, are in an alternate universe where taking a lousy bill, and associating it with a different name, makes it instantaneously into an excellent bill.

                      No amount of mental gymnastics on your part, or anyone else's, can make federal over-reach into a good idea.

                      And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.

                      Hell, you even demonstrated - repeatedly - that is is the same. damn. thing.

                      Which is where the GOP is likely going to destroy itself.

                      No, the GOP is far more likely to destroy themselves with the hypocrisy of the massive wasteful spending involved in never ending conspiracy theory investigation

                    • And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.

                      What a jest! A dude at Heritage said something decades ago, and you assert that I (a) knew it at the time and (b) agreed with it.
                      No, Progressivism, from either the Republican or Democrat orifice, draws vacuum.

                      the hypocrisy of the massive wasteful spending involved in never ending conspiracy theory investigations

                      Coming soon: dead website!

                    • I love how you discard well over half the post and reply only to the parts that you think you can spin in your favor. Case in point...

                      And yet, when the Heritage Foundation proposed it first, you thought it was a Great Idea. Then the idea was associated with democrats and it became Pure Evil. You also see it as a Great Idea when it is pitched by republicans, even though it is the same. damn. thing.

                      What a jest! A dude at Heritage said something decades ago, and you assert that I (a) knew it at the time and (b) agreed with it.

                      When you linked to it in a JE, you praised it. That is, until I pointed out that it was indeed calling for a mandate, after which you pretended that such a thing was not said. Furthermore, it was not said "decades ago"; at most it was said not long after RomneyCare was passed. Much like so many other conservatives, you thought RomneyCare was a brilliant idea; and you end

                    • You can always go back to the original link and actually read it [heritage.org].
                      And yes: if we're stupid enough to retain the 16th Amendment, then using the tax code to coerce people to do ANYTHING, e.g. buy health insurance, is an example of Progressive pencil-neck-speak.
                      A more CONSERVATIVE argument would be that making one single, honking-big State out of 57 has been a bad episode in our experiment in representative democracy. Woodrow Wilson laid the groundwork for Bush and Obama. If you think either tyrannical, then
                    • You can always go back to the original link and actually read it.

                      You should really try this reading thing, you might learn something. For example, by reading it you can find that they actually did want a mandate:

                      My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars, as well as most non-conservative analysts. Even libertarian-conservative icon Milton Friedman, in a 1991 Wall Street Journal article, advocated replacing Medicare and Medicaid âoewith a requirement that every U.S. family unit have a major medical insurance policy.â

                      They even admit that they called for it, and then tried to justify it as "not new":

                      My idea was hardly new. Heritage did not invent the individual mandate.

                      But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s

                      And those are the words from the heritage foundation site that you just linked to. It's too bad you couldn't bother yourself with reading that page. Where is your JE where you linked to it before? You could have spared me this typing by going back and reading that (notice tha

                    • Unfortunately you seem to be rather fond of a lot of the corporate hand-outs that are made possible by the tax code.

                      I'll tell yo what I'm really fond of: hack a bunch of brussel sprouts in half, roast until crisp in olive oil, let cool, add in bleu cheese and raisins. Mow down. Which has about as much relevance to my point as the corporate tax rate. There is nothing wrong with the tax code that can't be mended with pliers and a blow torch.

                      Are you trying to go Ron Paul on us here? What is it that you think is accomplished by changing that?

                      I don't effing know. Maybe if there wasn't money appearing from nowhere, propping up unsustainable entitlements, we'd have enough pressure on our neo-aristocracy to behave maturely? I u

                    • Maybe if there wasn't money appearing from nowhere, propping up unsustainable entitlements

                      Why do you hate the veterans so much? The largest entitlements - as demonstrated in an article discussed here not so long ago - go to large corporations and wealthy investors. We know you like those ones. The next largest ones go to benefits relating to military service - why do you want to cut those? I thought you supported the military?

                      If you ended federal welfare for low income earners and the unemployed today, and killed medicaid at the same time, the difference on the federal budget would be a r

                    • The largest entitlements - as demonstrated in an article discussed here not so long ago - go to large corporations and wealthy investors.

                      No: Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid.

                      If you ended federal welfare for low income earners and the unemployed today, and killed medicaid at the same time, the difference on the federal budget would be a rounding error.

                      You could, with equal validity, quote Dr. Seuss.

                    • Perhaps you missed the relevant discussion? [slashdot.org] If you read the cited source you'll see how off your assumptions are.
                    • You'll see that I pointed out our new "borrow it forward" tradition, on that link. There are any number of others supporting the point that entitlements are unsustainable [wsj.com].
                      As I've grown to understand the evil of Progressivism, one party has been handing out candy, and the other has been refusing to tax adequately to pay for it. So there is H8 to spread around, and all the demonization of this party or that is a distraction.
                    • You'll see that I pointed out our new "borrow it forward" tradition, on that link. There are any number of others supporting the point that entitlements are unsustainable.

                      OK, so we have determined here that you want to cut all the "entitlements", including payments to veterans, then. So why do you hate the veterans? Will you do this to all veterans, all the way back - including WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc? Or only to veterans of post-Vietnam conflicts?

                      As I've grown to understand the evil of Progressivism, one party has been handing out candy,

                      If we don't "hand out candy" to encourage people to join the military, then how will you get people to come in and fight your wars? If you tell them that once they leave the military you don't give a damn what happens to th

                    • It seems that you H8 the concept, but the issue is that FDR's Second Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org], up to and including ObamaCare, have been a running violation of the 9th & 10th Amendments.
                      As a veteran, and Constitutional supporter, I have to admit willingness to "vote against my own interests", to the same extent that, had I come home in a body bag, my life should have been forfeit.

                      Except, of course, for demonizing the party that starts with a D.

                      Yeah. Really. [theblaze.com]
                      Putz.

                    • the issue is that FDR's Second Bill of Rights

                      That argument is actually an insult to a strawman. The "Second Bill of Rights" is completely and utterly irrelevant as (amongst other reasons) it never made it further than a radio address. Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.

                      ObamaCare

                      Which you demonstrated clearly was a produ

                    • Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.

                      Oh, I don't know: it only summarizes the entire Progressive Project, culminating in ObamaCare. Then again, the truth of a political statement can be gauged by the vehemence of your denial, so I think we've struck nerve here.

                      This is you asking the government to break the promises that were made to members of the military.

                      Did I tell you that my dad is a retired vet? The already broken promises to vets (or have you paid attention to the calls for Shinseki's [cbsnews.com] head on a charger) are such that we can dispose of your pious calls for taking care of veterans with a mere "Heh". <troll>Heck, it's almost as th

                    • Your claiming that it somehow drives the direction of the current government makes as much sense as claiming that the "Axis of Evil" speech set up a series of concentration camps for the US government to indefinitely hold Iranian, Iraqi, and North Korean people without trial.

                      Oh, I don't know: it only summarizes the entire Progressive Project

                      If only such a "Project" actually was alive and well. While the Second Bill of Rights was a nice description of liberal ideals of the time, it is of no real relevance today as there are no liberals in federal government today, excepting perhaps Bernie Sanders (who is aware of how conservative in action of the democratic party has become [by intent or complacency] and calls himself an independent instead).

                      culminating in ObamaCare

                      So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group, based on the celebrat

                    • So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group

                      As long as you're making stuff up, you should say that it was spoken via Ronald Reagan into a magic Telefunken U47 that etched his words via an Autonifty transcriber onto gold plates, which were buried in a field in Massachusetts by voodoo gnomes, to be dug up later and transcribed by Willard Mitt, wearing mystic Ray-Bans, into RomneyCare.
                      I'm just finding your crap so lacking in creativity these days.

                    • So a handout to big business, written by a conservative special interest group

                      As long as you're making stuff up

                      The only one making stuff up on this matter is you. My descriptions come from actual text from your own writings.

                    • Oh, yeah? I was using your alphabet the whole time! So there!

                      Were you using them in some sort of alternate language that looks like English but has opposing meanings to those agreed upon by those of us who speak English? Because English speakers will recognize that indeed the text you linked to was the Heritage Foundation admitting to wanting not only a mandate, but a mandate that is quite nearly identical to what is in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. Furthermore they will recognize that every "alternative" plan you have linked to to date that h

                    • Now, analyze the article in its fullness.

                      I did analyze the article in its fullness. I read it from one end to the other. You, on the other hand, apparently took only the headline and assumed that it was all the information you needed. It is really, really, easy for politicians and political groups to lie to you when all they need to do is tell you what you want to hear in the first soundbite. No wonder the Tea Party loves you so dearly, you don't stick around to hear the full message.

                    • You, on the other hand, apparently took only the headline and assumed that it was all the information you needed.

                      Untrue

                      You certainly gave convincing evidence of having not read the full text. Had you actually read the full text, you would have realized that your assumptions of it - which you expressed repeatedly - were, as you said,

                      Untrue

                    • You could just admit to the obvious fact that the article you linked to plainly demonstrates that the Heritage Foundation not only wanted a mandate, but wanted the exact kind of mandate specified in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010. Replying instead with a one-word answer like you just did is perhaps the only option worse than a fact-free response.

                      Hell, you don't even need to admit to having posted it without reading it, just acknowledge that indeed what I quoted - directly from their
                    • You are pretending that you can make my argument ridiculous by bragging about not reading the texts. In the end, though, you only make yourself look ridiculous. Why have you chosen to celebrate denial of facts and refusal to read? I would say you have your head in the sand but you have gone way beyond to the point where most worms can't even find you.
                    • The pride you show in the degree of your illiteracy makes me even more afraid for our future generations than I was before we began these discussions.
                    • There was a Smitty here on slashdot who I added to my friends list some time ago. That Smitty was kind and well read. That Smitty was interested in other opinions and having discussions based on facts. That Smitty was even a bit humble. That Smitty seemed driven by an intellectual curiosity and a genuine interest in knowing about other people.

                      Has anyone seen that Smitty? The Smitty I see now seems to share the same slashdot UID and nickname but none of the characteristics that drew me to include the
                    • There was a time when you were genuinely interested in - or at least, good at faking interest in - having a conversation with people who do not agree with you on 110% of your beliefs. As best I can tell that was completely changed in November 2008 (or perhaps slightly earlier) when you realized that your guy lost the White House.
                    • Returning to civility, you are not.
                    • If anyone is making great use of privilege in this discussion it is you; choosing not to read and yet exercising the privilege to state opinions on those things that you are not reading.
          • ...making up silly nicknames...

            "President Lawnchair", and it's a horrible misnomer. d_r is very much pro Obama, he voted for him, and that's all it takes, and he still won't believe the man lied during the campaign, very much pro Obama and very much a democrat.. And Mr. Smith is still very much a partisan republican, of the more radical tea party type that would rather see the concentration of power moved to Wall Street, where it already is, actually. DC is merely a funnel.

    • What's supposed to be so scary about Hussein anyway?

      It's, roughly speaking, the Muslim equivalent of Peter. Peter is historically a Christian name but no one thinks you have to be Christian to be named Peter. It's become a cultural name. You could be a Dutch Atheist or a Russian Muslim or vice versa and still be named Peter (or maybe Piotr.) And similarly Hussein (or Husayn) has become a cultural name more or less common from West Africa to Malaysia, you could be a Kenyan Muslim or a Lebanese Christian or v
      • The first person that comes to mind when I hear the name was a Palestinian Christian engineer.

        The Hussein that the conspiracy theorists want you to think of first is Saddam. Yes, it is a very common name in that part of the world but the people who are desperate to find a way to throw out Obama any way possible are not concerned about that. Furthermore, the name is connected in American minds to that part of the world and to Islam; which are both things that are effective at getting people irritated here.

        And being as the "saving keystrokes" argument doesn't hold water (4 keystrokes instead of

        • by Arker (91948)
          "The Hussein that the conspiracy theorists want you to think of first is Saddam."

          Then they will be disappointed with me huh?

          After doing a couple google searches it looks to me likely to backfire even if you are right.

          "the TLA is clearly used intentionally for the purpose of getting anti-Obama types excited."

          As opposed to getting pro-Obama types excited? Because if that were the goal it would obviously be quite a success from your response.

          • "the TLA is clearly used intentionally for the purpose of getting anti-Obama types excited."

            As opposed to getting pro-Obama types excited? Because if that were the goal it would obviously be quite a success from your response.

            If you read the comments that I have actually written - rather than going by smitty's responses that are often written without reading my comments - you will realize what an enormous mistake it is to try to categorize me as a "pro-Obama" type. I have disagreed with more of the laws that Obama has signed (including the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010) than not. Smitty is just desperate to try to shove me in to the "leftist" mold that he believes anyone who is more liberal than (the conservat

            • by Arker (91948)
              "I look at the actual data of what Obama has done - ie, signed - as president, and I see him for what he is - the most conservative president our country has ever had. He is demonstrably more conservative than Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan, or Nixon."

              How are you defining conservative?

              "The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life. "

              How so?

              • "I look at the actual data of what Obama has done - ie, signed - as president, and I see him for what he is - the most conservative president our country has ever had. He is demonstrably more conservative than Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Reagan, or Nixon."

                How are you defining conservative?

                I am defining conservative as someone who seeks to conserve the fiscal and power structure of this country (ie, conserving as much power and wealth in the hands of those who have the most already). I am defining a conservative as someone who favors corporations over individuals.

                "The only reason I have voted for Obama is because the people who have ran against him were actively trying to force me out of my job and onto unemployment for the rest of my life. "

                How so?

                The science research budget would have been decimated even more so under McCain or Romney than it already has been under Obama and Bush. I would have had no hope for a career in this country even though I have lived here my entir

                • by Arker (91948)
                  "I am defining a conservative as someone who favors corporations over individuals."

                  Sure, by that definition we have had an unbroken string of conservative governments for the last century.

                  But that definition is rather wildly different from the definition you would find someone that actually identifies as conservative would give.

                  "The science research budget would have been decimated even more so under McCain or Romney than it already has been under Obama and Bush. "

                  Not that I disagree that McCain or Romney w
                  • But that definition is rather wildly different from the definition you would find someone that actually identifies as conservative would give.

                    People who call themsevles conservative talk about what Ayn Rand says their ideal conservative universe would accomplish. I am a person rooted in reality, and I define a conservative based on what conservatives actually do as politicians. We have been subjected to conservative economic and social plans in this country for decades (if not longer). I will say that fustakrakich has a good point in that there is nobody of note who is running to significantly alter the course of this ship, everyone just wants

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.

Working...