Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Because #ShutUpPeasants 76
You got admire the sack on this bimbo:
I'm old enough to remember a day when the fiction that government works for the people was semi-maintained.
You got admire the sack on this bimbo:
I'm old enough to remember a day when the fiction that government works for the people was semi-maintained.
One person's error is another person's data.
You're not supporting her why? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your bloody-minded narrowing of the discussion to the 17th Amendment alone is the height of disingenuousness.
Doom on you, putz.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not narrowing the discussion, I'm merely using the 17th amendment and your rab
Re: (Score:2)
Great job on claiming to be doing the opposite of what you're doing, though. For extra style points, try shouting it from outer space in the next iteration of this mummer's farce.
Re: (Score:1)
And I'm rejecting your framing of the 17th Amendment in isolation as a necessary, but insufficient analysis.
In other words, ignoring the issue entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, the one doing the ignoring the full picture is d_r. Perhaps you didn't read the thread. Or, you did, and this is so much obtuse trolling. Bravo.
Re: (Score:1)
Me? Troll? Nah nah nah it ain't me, babe...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears you have sworn to never again take anything I say seriously. I will nonetheless say again that your opposition to this judge suing for her job wreaks of hypocrisy in comparison to your newfound fervent opposition to the 17th amendment. On the one hand you are making a claim that "the old ways are better because they can help eliminate some democrats from the halls of power" while on the other hand you are saying "the old ways suck because they don't
Re: (Score:2)
The 17th Amendment, in isolation is not the issue.
The 17th Amendment, in conjunction with the 16th, the Federal Reserve Act, and the freezing of the size of the House (utterly hilarious you never seem to mention THAT in your shrill claims of being about representative democracy, you craven sack) IS the issue.
On the one hand you are making a claim that "the old ways are better because they can help eliminate some democrats from the halls of power" while on the other hand you are saying "the old ways suck because they don't allow a republican to re-stack the state's highest court at will".
So, your agitations aren't working, and now you must provoke with partisan labels.
It appears you have sworn to never again take anything I say seriously.
The reasons are as abundant as student loan debt.
Re: (Score:1)
and now you must provoke with partisan labels.
Him, partisan, you, personality... What is the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess we have a round robin not-reading-each-other club going?
Re: (Score:1)
I've argued that we all need to be our own President, and NOT be so rock-star focused.
Very funny... the pretend anarchist...
You've only argued for bringing your favorite 'rock star' back from the grave. You compare all that followed to 'the one'. You can hardly pick a worse *metric*.
Re: (Score:2)
The 17th Amendment, in isolation is not the issue.
You have previously brought it up on its own. We have previously discussed it on its own. You have previously defended repealing it on its own, even when I asked why you would be so interested in repealing it now when you had not called for it earlier.
But we can ignore your history and switch to your new claim
The 17th Amendment, in conjunction with the 16th, the Federal Reserve Act, and the freezing of the size of the House (utterly hilarious you never seem to mention THAT in your shrill claims of being about representative democracy, you craven sack) IS the issue.
I will concede that indeed you have had the overarching goal of reducing (your) taxes. If you want to campaign to destroy the IRS - and the country with it - go for it. You can fiddle while the
Re: (Score:2)
You have previously brought it up on its own. We have previously discussed it on its own. You have previously defended repealing it on its own, even when I asked why you would be so interested in repealing it now when you had not called for it earlier. But we can ignore your history and switch to your new claim
So. Effing. What? Is your argument, that positions, once formed, are immutable?
Increasingly, I feel as though you're just a clown throwing out agitprop to waste my time, rather than someone interested in analysis of issues and mutual education.
tl;dr: get stuffed.
Re: (Score:2)
So. Effing. What? Is your argument, that positions, once formed, are immutable?
If you have a new position that you want to share, please do so. Throwing a fit over my not knowing what you are thinking this afternoon is a bit rash. I can't tell you what you are currently thinking on any given issue, I can only point to what you have already written on slashdot and base my analysis on that. If what you have previously written no longer reflects your opinion, you could be so kind as to say how.
There certainly is record of you changing your mind on other matters in the past - for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not inclined to try to read your mind.
Re: (Score:2)
If President Lawnchair and the congress he had back in 2009 (which was theoretically controlled by democrats) had pushed through a proposal to remove Chief Justice John Roberts from the SCOTUS and make a seat available for them to appoint whomever they like, would you not have opposed that? So then why do you support The Kevlar Kandidate being given the right to remove the state's chief justice in spite of the constitutional structure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your apparent blind hatred of Walker is amusing, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're some kind of piece of work there, boss.
Re: (Score:2)
But indeed you are a hypocrite. You champion causes that help your party and care nearly not at all about what happens to the rest of humanity as long as your team wins. What your team does is always awesome to you, and if the other team were to use the same strat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...care nearly not at all about what happens to the rest of humanity as long as your team wins.
Gee! You're in to this projection thing also. You do exactly the same for the democrats. It's getting even harder to distinguish you two.
Re: (Score:2)
Gee! You're in to this projection thing also. You do exactly the same for the democrats. It's getting even harder to distinguish you two.
You are projecting more than I am when you make that statement. But you're not in to reading comprehension so that statement is not surprising from you. Tell me, what is the person you voted for in the past several elections doing these days? Oh, that's right, you didn't vote. But go ahead and tell us how wrong we were for doing so.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah yeah yeah. Your faith is more powerful than Mr. Smith's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Faith in what, exactly?
In what you believe...
Re: (Score:1)
In other words you are cheerleading for your team yet again, and as usual you are doing it only because they are your team.
OH! aaaaand you?
You're old enough to 'remember' a fantasy? (Score:1)
We call those 'flashbacks'. When was this magical time of unicorns and leprechauns? And how do you know the original level and branch separations of power were superior to 'Wilson's Folly'? Were you there? As a black woman, perhaps? Maybe a native. Please, do tell. And why is it Wilson's folly? He just signed the papers put on his desk. Anybody else in that position would be told to do the same thing, and they would comply or face the consequences.
Overly literal reader is literal (Score:2)
And why is it Wilson's folly?
I don't know. Go ask Hadrian's Wall.
And, while you're out, try to find some decent material.
You're as fresh as Her Majesty trying to explain her email server configuration.
Re: (Score:1)
As usual, nice dodge on the question. Could never expect anything less. You're definitely a real pro.
Go ask Hadrian's Wall.
Go ask it yourself. You keep making these assertions ad nauseum, not me.
Oh yes, And nobody has heard a thousand repetitions of your Wilson's Folly and no talent rodeo clown and religious 'freedom' shtick, not here, nope nope nope, didn't happen. Every post on the subject is your very first.
Re: (Score:2)
As usual, nice dodge on the question.
What's to answer? I labeled Wilson's Folly "Wilson's Folly". Alaska is referred to as Seward's Folly. Labeling things was the first job ever given a human.
One disagrees with someone, and labels their acts "folly".
It's a straightforward rhetorical play. But you know all this. So: why is it even a discussion?
Re: (Score:1)
I labeled Wilson's Folly "Wilson's Folly".
Yes, you actually believe it... It is a discussion because you believe you and what you advocate are different. I am simply trying to get through that business is business, and you, argue nuance.
Re: (Score:2)
Business is business? Sure, but there was a substantial change at that time. You seem to argue that the political system is a hard constant, when I'd argue it's more a slow collapse. Human nature*, I don't mind agreeing, is constant, but the political system aggregate is not the s
Re: (Score:1)
Well, first, the "the existential state of mankind" is no different from anything else in nature.
I do consider the Progressive acts which climaxed in 1913 as tantamount to taking the brakes off the car, and being the source of the U.S. slide into authoritarianism.
Such utter nonsense. You completely ignore the events of 53 years prior, or go back even more to 115 years, and all the shit in between. And besides, I ask again, "slide into authoritarianism" for who?? What actually changed? Nothing, that's what.
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, I ask again, "slide into authoritarianism" for who?? What actually changed? Nothing, that's what.
Then why did that combination of events occur, if it was feckless? It seems to me that you're self-refuting here. And your "bandwagon" refutation is delightfully content-free. Events happen, and you claim nothing changed, despite empirical evidence of the national debt, the size of the federal government, the incumbency rate.
I really need more than "nyeah, nyeah, nyeah" to view you as more than a buffoon.
invariably what you act on, and still deny.
You have yet to offer anything even slightly actionable as an alternative.
but the political system aggregate is not the same as human nature.
Ugh! Hilarious! Nothing could be a more precise reflection of 'human' nature.
I have no problem with 'refle
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing has changed. The republic and all its ancient institutions still stands, over 6000 years and keeps on ticking.
Then why did that combination of events occur, if it was feckless?
What is that supposed to mean? Things happen because people make them happen and they profit from it. It's business!
I'm just saying that the individual is not the group...
Yes he is! What do you think forms the group and everything it does? A group is not possible without individuals. Where do you come up with this silliness? A
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just saying that the individual is not the group...
Yes he is!
Ecological fallacy [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
So, denialism is a 'science'. Pretty fancy stuff there. I guess you are hereby absolved. Shit just happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...no requirement for such exists.
Yeah I noticed. You are definitely making a good point there. There really is no sense in your denials.
Re: (Score:2)
I do consider the Progressive acts which climaxed in 1913
They climaxed back then? You were arguing before that President Lawnchair is vastly worse and more "Progressive" than anything that ever happened before. Which argument are you making this week?
as tantamount to taking the brakes off the car
This doesn't seem to jive much with your previous lines of
Regulations are brakes, removing them is the gas pedal
But perhaps I'm being too literal as well. I do have that annoying habit of asking you to explain yourself, which seems to bother you quite a bit in recent years.
Re: (Score:2)
"tantamount to taking the brakes off the car" refers to removing the federalist feedback loops that kept the 57 states from being over-run by the federal government.
"Regulations are brakes, removing them is the gas pedal" refers to the over-running of the economy by the federal government.
Hope that helps! Have a nice day! Thanks for asking!
Re: (Score:2)
However you did not address the half of my comment where you claimed that the "Progressive" movement was already at its prime 100+ years ago, in spite of your constant reiteration that it is ever climbing and exceeding its dreams today
Re: (Score:2)
you don't care about the fact that you use one analogy one way in one case and then the same analogy the opposite way in a different one. Well, if you don't see a contradiction there, then that is your opinion to hold.
Yeah, I wasn't aware of your "monoanalogic usage rule".
you claimed that the "Progressive" movement
I said "the Progressive acts which climaxed in 1913". You must be referring to something else when you say
already at its prime 100+ years ago, in spite of your constant reiteration that it is ever climbing and exceeding its dreams today
However, I'm quite familiar (and bored) with your deliberate misreadings and trollish, bad-faith arguments. I should up the game and just argue with my son's dirty diapers, fungible as they are with your approaches.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I wasn't aware of your "monoanalogic usage rule".
You seem to have a fondness for accusing me of setting "rules". I have made no effort at any such thing, in spite of your accusations to the contrary. I'm merely pointing out the logical contradiction to use an analogy in two opposing ways. But go on...
I said "the Progressive acts which climaxed in 1913". You must be referring to something else when you say
So then are you saying now that the Progressivism you love to hate that was around back then is not the same as the Progressivism that you claim to see now that you also love to hate? Logically if they were the same movement, and there was already a cli
Re: (Score:1)
Still copping out!
I'm not familiar... (Score:1)
...with her usage of the terms "due process" and "equal protection". She's not being accused of a crime, and the new rules aren't any different for other of her fellow justices.
And one of the commenters on that blog seemed to have joined her in the I guess "throw some cool legal-sounding stuff up on the wall and see if any of it sticks (with the Liverals)" tactic, calling this a bill of attainder (the legislature convicting someone of a crime) and ex post facto law (retroactive criminal legislation).
I'd sa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well in this case I'd bet the only ism this legal challenge is being done for is selfism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
A conspiracy of one is much less worse than a conspiracy of many.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
To me a bureaucracy is a *mindless* collective, and so, while undesirable, is much less sinister than a conspiracy. As is individuals pursuing personal power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It never was; a bureaucracy is where individuals check their individuality, and brains, at the door, and simply become generic drone executors of ponderous, one-size-fits-all SOP's.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry: when was the individual NOT the group?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then I guess a bureaucracy is not individuals either. You could try to make up your mind you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I followed it perfectly. You're evading the issue, as usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your though is indistinguishable from a Möbius hooey strip, from my end.
Yes, that makes perfect sense. Your contradictions would preclude anything else. They take precedence, and are apparently intractable, even by you, as you refuse to even acknowledge their existence. Make that facade shine, my man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I understood the typo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm sure...
Of course you are. It's routine...
Re: (Score:2)