Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Because #ShutUpPeasants More

Because #ShutUpPeasants

Comments Filter:
  • You have been trumpeting how much better life would be if the peasantry were stripped of the right to elect their US senators. Why would you not be supporting someone who rose in government under the old ways?
    • In both cases, I think the empirical results militate against your position, but I don't think you're given to thorough analysis, so why bother engaging in discussion with you?
      • What did I miss? You have very plainly stated your opposition to the 17th amendment. Or do you not care if it actually improves the situation for the peasantry, as long as it leads to more guys from your team in the halls of power?
        • I've stated my positive position that the original level and branch separations of power were superior to Wilson's Folly.
          Your bloody-minded narrowing of the discussion to the 17th Amendment alone is the height of disingenuousness.
          Doom on you, putz.
          • I'm trying to ask you why repealing the 17th amendment, and going back to your idea of "the good old days" of government, is a good idea while someone suing to keep their job - on the state level no less - is a terrible thing. You seem to have vastly different standards, here. Does this Wisconsin judge happen to have a (D) after her name somewhere? There are plenty of judge-ship positions that are elected in this country.

            I'm not narrowing the discussion, I'm merely using the 17th amendment and your rab
            • And I'm rejecting your framing of the 17th Amendment in isolation as a necessary, but insufficient analysis.
              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.

              • 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.

              • In space, only smitty can hear you scream?

                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
                • For the bazillionth time:
                  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.

                  • and now you must provoke with partisan labels.

                    Him, partisan, you, personality... What is the difference?

                    • And. . .I've argued that we all need to be our own President, and NOT be so rock-star focused.
                      So I guess we have a round robin not-reading-each-other club going?

                    • 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*.

                  • 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

                    • 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.

                    • 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

                    • tiresome
                    • If you've answered the question before you could link to where you answered it and I'll read that. It appears you are taking a position you did not hold before, and I'm asking you to describe it. That is how discussions used to work.

                      I'm not inclined to try to read your mind.
                    • Then I will put this a slightly different way.

                      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?
                    • waste
                    • I don't understand your hypothetical: "After Wisconsinites vote to amend the state constitution. . .".
                      Your apparent blind hatred of Walker is amusing, though.
                    • This isn't about Walker. This is about your rank hypocrisy. If the US congress had amended the constitution in 2009 to give Obama the power to throw justices off the SCOTUS at will, you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs that it was a massive power grab that would irrevocably lead us to our country becoming an Islamofascist hellhole. But in Wisconsin, when they are trying to restack the state's supreme court in favor of a republican by changing how justices are appointed - and removed - y
                    • Your wild rectal pluck hypothetical, tenuously related at best to the JE at hand, is about MY "hypocrisy"?
                      You're some kind of piece of work there, boss.
                    • The only wild part about the hypothetical that you are so happily brushing off is that it assumes the democrats would have the spine to do such a thing. They have shown for decades now that they are too spineless to stand up the republicans.

                      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
                    • Indeed most times reading your mind would be a waste. From your posts it appears that most of the time your mind is full of anti-obama and general anti-democrat conspiracies. There are plenty of those on the front page of slashdot on a regular basis, I don't need to exert additional effort to find them.

                    • ...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.

                    • 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.

                    • Yeah yeah yeah. Your faith is more powerful than Mr. Smith's.

                    • Faith in what, exactly? The magnitude of certainty with which you project your beliefs upon the world suggests that you have more faith than smitty and I combined.

                    • Faith in what, exactly?

                      In what you believe...

                • 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?

  • 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.

    • So, I guess you're not briefed on the "I'm old enough to remember. . ." meme, where one makes this sort of assertion.

      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.

      • 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.

        • 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?

          • 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.

            • Yes, 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. As cheered and abated by Republicans and Democrats alike.
              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

              • 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.

                • 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

                  • 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

              • 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.

                • The apparent contradiction is superficial.
                  "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!
                  • OK, you responded to half of my comment by stating that 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.

                    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

                    • 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.

                    • 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

                    • Still copping out!

  • ...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

Slashdot Top Deals

One person's error is another person's data.

Close