Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Worth it for the howls on here alone 51

Journal by smittyoneeach

What's changed is that Walker has, in the last week, gone national. His speech at the Iowa Freedom Summit earned rave reviews, and was followed with what appears to be the first pro-Walker presidential ad. And everyone seems to have noticed what Walker's opponents in Wisconsin have learned the hard way, repeatedly: he's a formidable politician. This should worry his GOP rivals not only because of Walker's win streak, but also because Walker is doing something many of them aren't: he's setting the terms of the debate instead of following the terms the Democrats have set.

Walker has the same virtue as Sarah Palin: making the Left wet itself. Unlike Palin, Walker has a substantially better record of standing in the breach and surviving. Stipulate that fustakrakich is correct, and it's all rigged. Fine. Let's go for max Lefty head 'splosions, then.

This discussion has been archived.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

Worth it for the howls on here alone More

Worth it for the howls on here alone

Comments Filter:
  • ... and he'll likely go down the same way. It doesn't matter how good he looks in a suit eventually he'll trip up and his handlers won't be ready to catch him. Just because he's spent most of his "adult" life as a politician doesn't mean he's ready for what's ahead. You'll be supporting Jeb in a matter of months.

    • You'll be supporting Jeb in a matter of months.

      Nah, I'm sworn off of dynastic politics. I'd write YOU in prior to voting for Jeb.

      • You'll be supporting Jeb in a matter of months.

        Nah, I'm sworn off of dynastic politics. I'd write YOU in prior to voting for Jeb.

        But on planet earth, who would you be voting for in 2016? You seem to have convinced yourself that Hillary will be on the democratic side of the ticket. If it is Hillary vs Jeb, I have a hard time imagining you not voting for Jeb. You can pretend all you want to not like the Bush family but we know how dearly you hate the Clintons.

        • Voted Perot in '92, and I will cheerfully vote against another Bush.
          Other than this one heckler veto, I'll wait for a ballot. I will say that slapping a vote on your governor would please me, though, and not just for your head 'splosions: I think he may help move us measurably in the direction of reform.

          • your governor

            My governor isn't running for anything in 2016, thank you very much.

            I think he may help move us measurably in the direction of reform

            Are you referring to the Kevlar Kandidate? He is not my governor. That said if you want reform he is not your guy. Read the actual economic results in Wisconsin before you start getting excited, they are nowhere near what he promised. Unemployment has continued to rise on his watch. The state's budget is nowhere near balanced and the voodoo economics being applied won't get it to break-even any time in the next several decades. His g

            • Oh, I sort of assumed you were in Madison, given your explosive diaper overflows at the mention of Walker. In fact, given that I don't have much actual trust in you, I don't consider your denial dispositive--to the extent that it matter.

              ...we definitely don't need his kind of arrogance driving down our national significance.

              Were you deliberately trying to be funny, in light of #OccupyResoluteDesk, or are you just on a roll? Bwahahahahaha.

              • Oh, I sort of assumed you were in Madison

                You make lots of wild-assed assumptions like that and you are almost never correct. Did you assume back in 2012 that I was in St. Paul, since I wrote far more JEs about the Teflon Candidate in a similar time frame leading up to 2012 than I have on the Kevlar Kandidate? Would you have assumed me to have been in Arizona in 2008 since I didn't care for McCain? And in Texas in 2004 and 2000?

                I should sign up for your travel plan, I don't have the wealth to be able to spontaneously criss-cross the country

                • I don't know. Given that I really don't have any confidence in your integrity (you can't even complete The Communist Manifesto reading project) I'm not fully convinced you aren't in Wisconsin. That's a direct reflection of how much you've debased your integrity on this web site.

                  • I'm not fully convinced you aren't in Wisconsin

                    I love that line! Are you also not fully convinced I'm not an extraterrestrial? Are you not fully convinced I'm not actually your ex-wife? I'd love to know what else you think you know about me because you aren't full convinced of the contrary.

                    you can't even complete The Communist Manifesto reading project

                    Based on your writings, I read more of it than you did. Your own JEs counter your claim of you actually reading the text.

          • I think he may help move us measurably in the direction of reform.

            You misspelled regression, to what period that actually existed, you have never specified. It seems to be a toss up between the gilded age and pre-civil war, or maybe ancient Rome, something that places you in the best social clubs. His idea of reform is telling 'republicans' to have more babies to counter the demographic threat. Oh wait, that was Romney.

            Why do you want to trash the economy so badly, and so quickly? Think of the kind of world

            • Why do you want to trash the economy so badly, and so quickly?

              Do you actually believe the rectal sunshine pouring forth from #OccupyResoluteDesk, then?

              • Of course not. Again you're trying to pull that old bullshit diversion about being against one means I'm for the other. What makes you think that will ever work, I'll never know. But I am still interested in why do you want to make things worse so fast. Is it part of your desire to bring on the end times, the 'rapture', or whatever you call it? Jim Jones for president, huh? Knock yourselves out, I'm going to lobby for a snack.

                • No. While a devout-ish Christian, (I suppose) one can only read Revelation with dread. Anybody seeking to hasten the Eschaton, as such, is an idiot.
                  Which is not the same thing as wishing for Christ's return, and the commensurate pulling of the plug from all of the idiots running the world at the moment.
                  The nuance here is subtle. Do you understand it?

                  • Your 'nuance' is passive aggressive obfuscation.

                    • I. . .just don't understand what you mean there. Doesn't aggression, passive or otherwise, require an object? Also, some sort of aggression? Or are you counting prayer as aggression? I think that the phrase "passive aggressive obfuscation", at some level of abstraction, is kind of like Steven Wright's gag about a self-portrait of a man writing his autobiography.
                      Or maybe you just didn't get my point.

                    • Or maybe you just didn't get my point.

                      :-) Nah, you never could hide that from me. The tricky part is getting you to see it.

                      Mr. Smith, tear down that wall!

        • It's pretty obvious Hillary has your vote. In that light, why you complain about any other candidate remains a mystery. The good thing about Hillary is that, thanks to you grease monkeys (including a few republicans [independent.co.uk]), she has a well oiled machine waiting for her. Business will be very good.

  • Now that I can believe. Maybe he'll raise even more money for Hillary...

    • Her Majesty doesn't need money from either.
      • Here's a thought - how about getting rid of the two-term limit? It's better than having two unknown quantities fighting it out, and turns the election into a referendum on the incumbent.
        • Oh, no. I want, if anything more term limits. Politics needs to be less a spectator sport.

          • Wrong again. If you are going to remove the freedom of choice, then the lottery system is your best bet. Term limits do not work, unless possibly, you do it for all government positions or the government itself. Any incumbency at all simply turns it into a charade, like in Mexico. The Party becomes king. I mean, you have that already, but how obvious do you want to be?

            • Wrong again. The liberty to choose not-liberty is the certainty that, sooner or later, slavery comes.
              Term limits, like money, are a dirt simple, if ham-fisted, way to minimize corruption.
              Everything you do to minimize power structures, like Parties, is worth doing.
              Chemotherapy sucks, but we thrash some healthy tissue to go after the bad.

              • You don't know what you are talking about. I've seen it. It does nothing to minimize the corruption. It only provides more opportunity to join the fun. It has not reduced corruption one tiny bit. This constant patchwork on a fatally flawed system will get you nowhere. It is mere tinkering, simply to dress up the facade.

                • You don't know what you are talking about.

                  Can you provide a more concrete example of your counter-point, such as it is?

        • how about getting rid of the two-term limit?

          Because we don't want the office of president turned into what its current occupant thinks it is?

          • Other countries manage it without their leaders turning into kings.

            People should be free to vote for whomever they want. And without term limits, there's no using the last 2 years for "preparing their legacy", or being a "lame duck" because the carrot of another term puts some restrictions on their actions.

            Additionally, their party is free to decide that they're fed up and replace them - another restraint. No "my leader, right or wrong."

            The 22nd amendment was only enacted in 1945 - after FDR died. FDR ha

            • Other countries manage it without their leaders turning into kings.

              Other countries aren't formally Right-of-center undergoing an attempted takeover by its internal Left. The U.S. has checks and balances and intentional slowdowns built into its political processes, so it would take a near-king to overcome in a timely fashion those holdovers from our prior traditional past.

              People should be free to vote for whomever they want.

              Not to an extreme. People should be free to swing their fists, too, but there are limits to that. I think you should get to elect whatever bastard you want, you just shouldn't get to elect the same bast

              • Indeed, as Amity Schlaes has shown, the whole "FDR brought the U.S. out of the Great Depression" meme is a whole lotta airbrushing.
                • I certainly didn't say FDR brought the US out of the Great Depression. It took WW2 to do that. Hence the "The economy needs a boost - let's go to war with someone" meme.
                  • Well, it's impossible to factor out FDR & WWII from history, and see to what degree the U.S. economy would've recovered, on its own, without all the tragedy.
              • Wow. You must think that Kanuckistan is a pinko stronghold. :-)

                • Pay the kid no mind. He also believes that only property owners should be allowed to vote.

                • No more so than most every other nation. The U.S. lags the general world-wide trend Leftward, so pretty much everywhere else is to the Left of this country.

                  And I am a pretty far Right person, in which despite being much further to the Right than generally the rest of the world, the U.S. has become way too far Left for me.

                  So that's where I'm coming from, in full disclosure. We're looking at the same reality, I just come at it from a, these days, rather minority and quite unpopular perspective. But I am wh

                  • Not everything from the right is bad, and not everything from the left is sweetness and honey. The problem is the polarization. And since the opposition will eventually win an election no matter who's in power, it makes it really hard to cooperate.

                    We have it up here too, but it tends to be more muted when we have minority governments, since then you need at least some votes from one of the opposing parties to pass legislation.

              • Like the rest, you take no account of the political/business institutions that hold the power over the individual that represents them. But since you also believe that only property owners should be allowed to vote, anything you say on the matter should be taken with a few kilos of salt.

                You already have the eye shades and ear plugs installed. Please, don't forget the cork. You need two, one for each end.

      • Regardless, they are helping her campaign, if it exists. The oneness of the party becomes more overt every day.

        • Look at you having it both ways! "helping. . .if it exists" You are teh BEST!

          • Yes, everybody is pushing, except her so far. It works well for both sides to have her in. She is raising money for the party. Whether she runs or not hardly matters. Just string 'em a long for as long as you can. And it only gets easier while the 'opposition' plays the part of the insane clown posse. Your 'river of lies' is an ocean of money. These are the people you vote for. For her personally the sky's the limit, and it goes a lot higher than merely being president. Ol' Henry is about to kick the bucket

            • I realize you H8 money. It is a simple metric that happens to be understood by all. It's also just one dimension of a more complex problem. Hence you see rich women spending piles of cash to win office in California, and not quite making it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"We want to create puppets that pull their own strings." -- Ann Marion "Would this make them Marionettes?" -- Jeff Daiell

Close