Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
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. You're so intent on distracting from Her Majesty as an utterly unreliable public figure; surely you can name a name. Find some sack. Do it.

You claimed earlier that classified information was mishandled.

Isn't that what the FBI investigation is showing? Your little "hear no evil, see no evil" game marks you great toady material for an authoritarian regime, by the way.

I'm not playing this game.

Dude, you're just a farce. Like Her Majesty.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 98

you might accidentally learn something about Communism by reading about them.

Oh, please: emulating the early church in the Book of Acts (as explicitly noted in the article) is not the "kingdom of God, hold the God" notion that is Communism. You're doing noble people grave harm by juxtaposing them with Joseph Stalin, who is a proper existential example of what Communism inevitably becomes, once the godless sodomite infestation settles in.
Keep pluckin' that chicken.

Comment Re:huh? (Score 1) 98

An interesting link, indeed.

Not that you would be able to understand their ways.

Speaking of not understanding their ways, I'm off to church. Because, modulo the pacifism thing (to which I don't object when consistently practiced in their fashion) 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.

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 think her contradictory public utterances are sufficient. I would not accuse you of any actual interest in other than wasting my time on the topic. History on here indicates you're just one extended public quibble. And I've already stipulated she's beyond justice. So please explain what, precisely, you care about here.

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? My impression was that Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Secret Tool Service (that's YOU, James Bland) were kind of making it up as you go.

I'm used to seeing you change topics as a defensive strategy around here, but that is quite the shift.

Speak, Ye of the Drone-portable Goalposts!

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

As you say.

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, but you gonna do precisely shag-all, Joe." Your crescendos of supercilious bleating aside, Her Majesty will have to get liberal with the walking-around money to buy her way out of the "liar" category. She's the modern Jezebel.

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

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.

You claim to be in favor of reading books, right?

I'm currently enjoying's+pleasure+palace which I'll have to bump up when I finish. A fine exposition of a truly sad tale of a godless Commie sodomite infestation.

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 47

The reaction to the "Smoketoomuch" gag recalls lunch with a colleague.
He'd mentioned sports, and I allowed that, at the risk of sounding un-American, I'm not that much into sports.
He blurted: "What, are you GAY?" and then looked mortified for having asked such a personal question in a casual business setting when we hardly knew each other.
"You know, I really hadn't ever thought about it. . ." I replied, contemplating, rubbing the chin, staring at the ceiling as though pondering a difficult chess move. The dissonance of me not getting angry (or aroused) just floored him, as his tint passed candy apple red and headed for sun dried tomato.
Good times.

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.

if you are hoping that the guys who run that website are actually of deeply conservative persuasion

In the sense of "conserving rationality in the face of the current godless Commie sodomite infestation", sure. But that wouldn't necessarily be distinct from the GOP, which seems strangely comfortable with preserving Obama's lousy ideas.
Your desperate need to reject "The Man is Hiding the Stash" fallacy has completely justified its inclusion in the JE, though.

Comment Re:Veterans care (Score 1) 47

how certain you are that something was intentionally done wrong in the exact way that you believe it to have been done.

This kind of legalistic hairsplittery (among other reasons) is why interactions with you and the thought of Her Majesty leave one craving a bit of personal hygiene.
The question is not: "Can you find some mental gymnastic routine by which you are not precisely guilty of this or that specific act?"
Rather, it's: "Can I trust you?" And you've just there answered: "In general, no."
Give it to me in a forthright manner, or keep it to yourself, please.

how can you be sure

The weasel-wording is the tell.

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

No, the words are the words. I suppose by rendering the ideals subjective, you can dismiss any with which you disagree. Fair enough. Just understand that this, too, is a subjective act.

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.

Not bad. Not bad at all, sir.

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!