Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "The Pickled Past Fallacy" 128
Anybody else tired of the "You never criticized X during period Y, therefore Z is privileged" argument?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
"The Pickled Past Fallacy"
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
Why do you insist on misquoting me? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And your response is. .
Re: (Score:2)
"You never criticized X during period Y, therefore Z is privileged"
Which links to a comment I posted, not in quotation marks? You chose that punctuation, not I.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
let it take you where it may. .
Re: (Score:2)
he, and I back our criticisms up, with our votes
Really? How do you back up your criticism by not voting? That claim rings hollow.
As for smitty, he happily votes for people who want to "replace" the affordable care act with the affordable care act. He keeps telling us how the ACA will be magically made vastly better when it has someone else's name on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, your logic would involve replacing a death spiral [washingtonexaminer.com] with another death spiral.
OK, you have a point: the GOP is that clueless.
Re: (Score:2)
As for smitty, he happily votes for people who want to "replace" the affordable care act with the affordable care act. He keeps telling us how the ACA will be magically made vastly better when it has someone else's name on it.
Workin' hard, trying to figure out how you characterize that ObamaCare, a moving target piece of jazz improv played on a steaming loaf of lies in a river of effluent, as "an act".
I call it an "act" because that is part of the name. Affordable Care ACT. I didn't name it, that is what the authors called it when they wrote it. You can call it a law instead - which is also correct as I conceded after errantly calling it a bill over 5 years after it was passed - but that doesn't make "act" an incorrect name.
Of course, your logic would involve replacing a death spiral with another death spiral.
You claim to disl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And ultimately the point remains that you love every part of HIIBA 2010 except for the final signature that made it into law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore, with the enumeration of these changes, can you actually point to one that has an impact on you?
Re: (Score:2)
why have none of them been the single payer "takeover" that you keep claiming is imminent?
I thought it was Her Majesty's task to make the peasants beg for worse as relief from the current pain, wasn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
why have none of them been the single payer "takeover" that you keep claiming is imminent?
I thought it was Her Majesty's task to make the peasants beg for worse as relief from the current pain, wasn't it?
That was a great demonstration of moving the goalposts, there. For many years you have been claiming that President Lawnchair is femtoseconds away from abolishing your beloved for-profit pyramidal health insurance system and replacing it with single payer. Now, upon realizing that there is absolutely not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening before his successor is inaugurated, you are suddenly claiming that Hillary will do it.
That is hilarious. She is just as in bed with the insurance indust
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always maintained that ObamaCare, your river of lies, was a precursor to your real Single Prayer goal.
You have, certainly, made that claim a great many times. You have, not once, provided anything vaguely resembling something that could ever be considered to be the beginning of a thought of a shred of the basis for support for that claim.
The point here, though, is that you just said that Hillary is going to do it. Did you finally realize that indeed President Lawnchair will never pull it off? It's too bad you are ignoring the simple fact that Hillary and Lawnchair are owned by the same insurance ind
Re: (Score:2)
Did you finally realize that indeed President Lawnchair will never pull it off?
Why can't the two of these Commies be running a bad cop/worse cop play?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you finally realize that indeed President Lawnchair will never pull it off?
running a bad cop/worse cop play?
I'm interested in seeing you tell us why this new conspiracy came to be. Previously you were absolutely certain that President Lawnchair was going to unseat the current system for single payer. Now, still completely devoid of facts, you are trying to claim that Hillary will do it instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We will not see single payer on the federal level for at least another 20-30 years unless we see a shift on the level of a breakup of our 50 states into multiple new nations.
I would applaud all the people who think Single Prayer a swift idea simply gathering in a state, e.g. Massachusetts, and just taxing each other as erotically as necessary to fund the utopia.
The attempt to implement this notion at the federal level is, was, and will be an explicit confession that humanity hasn't learned jack from the Tower of Babel.
Re: (Score:2)
I would applaud all the people who think Single Prayer a swift idea simply gathering in a state
I'm not sure what you mean by "swift" here, but you had previously - and repeatedly - told everyone to be on Red alert for the imminent rollout of single payer in this country. And after all, if we can agree on anything it is that President Lawnchair is a politician. As a politician why would he start an initiative that he knows won't come to bear fruit for decades? There is absolutely no way that a President Hillary Clinton would ever sign single payer into law (not that it matters as she wouldn't get
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
proven worse than any conspiracy I could have concocted,
Really? Well, if we want to play literal on the I part of "I could have concocted", then I'll agree that you were not the first to spawn many (if any) of your favorite conspiracies. But as for conspiracies you have been a proud cheerleader for, I can think of several that are much worse than reality:
We could of course, go on all night and beyond, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
overt Democrat malfeasance
The mere existence of a Democrat somewhere in DC does not automatically mean that every time something happens - or simply may happen as is the case with many of your conspiracies - that it is "Democrat malfeasance". Some of your favorite (by message and JE count) conspiracies are of things that haven't happened at all, yet you associate them with Democrats and tell us that they are things that President Lawnchair will somehow execute any coming femtosecond.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The mere existence of a Democrat somewhere in DC does not automatically mean that every time something happens - or simply may happen as is the case with many of your conspiracies - that it is "Democrat malfeasance". Some of your favorite (by message and JE count) conspiracies are of things that haven't happened at all, yet you associate them with Democrats and tell us that they are things that President Lawnchair will somehow execute any coming femtosecond.
But. . .that's precisely What. They. Want. You. To. Think.
What? I quoted my text directly for you so you can read it and try to find some connection between it and what you wrote. There is no dispute that you are in favor of a great magnitude of paranoia, at least when it comes to anyone who dares carry a (D) after their name. However your notion of "what they want you to think" doesn't really parse here, as it would not seem to be in "their" best interest to encourage paranoia if "they" were about to go and launch into something nefarious.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was reacting to "Some of your favorite (by message and JE count) conspiracies are of things that haven't happened at all. . ."
Well, considering many of your most-often repeated conspiracies - namely single-payer healthcare and a lawnchair-driven attack on Benghazi - have never happened, I don't see where you are coming from. Some of your other conspiracies are just simply absurd, but the number of conspiracies that you hold so dearly that you insist will come to bear are particularly amusing as the clock runs out on the Lawnchair administration.
Re: (Score:2)
namely single-payer healthcare and a lawnchair-driven attack on Benghazi - have never happened
And it will take continual vigilance (the price of liberty) to maintain this assertion.
Because the rodeo clowns of the Left only screw in the vertical when they have access to power.
Re: (Score:2)
namely single-payer healthcare and a lawnchair-driven attack on Benghazi - have never happened
And it will take continual vigilance (the price of liberty) to maintain this assertion.
In the case of the former, we already know with absolute certainty that single-payer health care at the federal level won't happen under the Lawnchair Administration; we have known this since at least 2010 when HIIBA 2010 was signed into law. We also know that Hillary Clinton, should she be elected POTUS, would never sign single payer into law either. Those are non-negotiable facts.
In the case of the latter, as you are now admitting that indeed there was no lawnchair-driven (or lawnchair-sponsored) att
Re: (Score:2)
We also know that Hillary Clinton, should she be elected POTUS, would never sign single payer into law either. Those are non-negotiable facts.
How do you refer to a potential future event as a non-negotiable fact? Would you care to walk that back?
Re: (Score:2)
We also know that Hillary Clinton, should she be elected POTUS, would never sign single payer into law either. Those are non-negotiable facts.
How do you refer to a potential future event as a non-negotiable fact?
Because there is no potential future event where she would do anything else.
First of all, she has many times taken a stance against single-payer. She is very clear on this, she does not support single payer.
Second, she is very heavily funded by wall street and insurance interests, who all oppose single payer. She would not dare take an action that would be so opposite their stands.
But even if she were to get hit in the head by a flying toilet and forget how she got there (assuming she ever were e
Re: (Score:2)
She is very clear on this
The only thing very clear about Her Majesty is an insatiable lust for power. And a pile of quid on the side.
I say keep a weather eye on Her Majesty until called before the Almighty, where her full-spectrum lying won't mean a thing. Seriously. #OccupyResoluteDesk is an example of a tool. Hers is an example of the hand that guides.
Re: (Score:2)
She is very clear on this
The only thing very clear about Her Majesty is an insatiable lust for power.
If that statement is correct, then she has no choice but to remain opposed to single payer throughout her career. There is no economically powerful lobby supporting single payer, and this country will never see one.
Seriously. #SillyHashTag is an example of a tool.
Interesting that you have had such an about-face on President Lawnchair. You put a lot of energy in to telling the world what a mad power grabber he has been, and how he has been preparing the world for the ultimate takeover by communist atheist anarchist reptoid illuminati. You tell us abou
Re: (Score:2)
There is no economically powerful lobby supporting single payer
Are you saying public sector unions do not exist? Or that it's not another graft, kickback and vote buying scheme like everything else, to include the Military-Industrial Complex?
Interesting that you have had such an about-face on President Lawnchair. You put a lot of energy in to telling the world what a mad power grabber he has been, and how he has been preparing the world for the ultimate takeover by communist atheist anarchist reptoid illuminati. You tell us about all these awful things he has personally done to make your life awful. Now you claim he is the one being manipulated?
You behave as though these two concepts are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no economically powerful lobby supporting single payer
Are you saying public sector unions do not exist?
I am saying they are not economically powerful. You can't honestly say that your party has not been constantly assaulting every union from every front for the past several decades. There is a reason why union membership in this country is at its lowest in decades, and it is the same reason why the economic disparity between the lowest paid workers and the highest paid executives is the greatest it has ever been. As union membership continues to dwindle, their economic power continues to dwindle as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying they are not economically powerful.
So, who staffs the IRS, BLS, DOJ, &c. How do you expect your career buddies and your media allies not to behave as a cartel [spectator.org], especially in an era where no one thinks that there is any such thing as truth and accountability?
How can one be an incompetent tool and an evil mastermind simultaneously?
I think #OccupyResoluteDesk tends toward 'tool' on foreign policy, and evil master baiter on domestic issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I am saying they are not economically powerful.
So, who staffs the IRS, BLS, DOJ, &c
Public sector unions - who don't even count the majority of public sector employees in their membership - have vanishingly little (arguably none, in fact) influence on any of those.
The IRS was attempting to do its job of collecting taxes and that somehow made you and other conservatives mad when they looked at people who were trying to apply for tax exempt status while encouraging people to outright cheat on taxes.
The BLS is basically just a statistics department. They evaluate the numbers, and publ
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you are a full-on Pollyanna in your partisanship, or are actively prevaricating is a purely academic question.
The more germane point, in the case of the IRS, is to what degree the GOP elite were complicit, in the name of protecting Holy Progress from a wave of reform.
tl;dr: You funny.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I should just be impressed with the fact that you have at least
Re: (Score:2)
You are trying to accuse me of partisanship
Dude. There is no bigger shill under the sun. You make Rachel Effing Maddow look a sane, balanced intellectual by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My team (the reform team) has yet to inhabit the White House.
But yet you celebrate every GOP victory. You keep telling us how much better the policies that President Lawnchair has supported were when they were instead supported by GWB, GHWB, or Reagan. To claim there have not been presidents whose actions support your ideals is being petty.
It's been variations on the theme of Progressive, statist tools (with the notable exception of Reagan) this last century
We have already established using actual facts that President Lawnchair is demonstrably more conservative than Reagan, so you need to add him to that list. Along with both Presidents Bush, President Nixon, and President Ford (
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While the last 7 years have shown the GOP to be substantially equivalent to the [...] Democrat party
In reality that statement is completely backwards. The GOP hasn't moved anywhere but further to the right. The Democrats have given up on the left entirely and followed the GOP to the right. Again, if we actually look at facts we will see this to be the case; The Lawnchair Administration has made administrative decisions that are more conservative than any that came from the Reagan Administration. Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Ford, etc all look liberal now not because they were in any way liberal but because t
Re: (Score:2)
The Democrats have given up on the left entirely and followed the GOP to the right.
I guess that might arguably be the case for Congressional Democrats, for a couple of reasons: .Bernie Sanders? Is he a sideshow like Trump?
(a) The GOP has the majority, though that has amounted to roughly shag-all in the way of fiscal sanity.
(b) Democrats have to, you know, reflect the will of the people who are going to turn out for the election. Or not.
But how do you square your argument with. .
Federalist is a strange choice of word from you
I've referred to myself as such more or less regularly. "Federalist" means understanding that our separation
Re: (Score:2)
My team (the reform team)
If by "reform team" you mean the "Reform Party", I will point out that arguably the most successful politician who called himself part of the Reform Party was Jesse "The Blowhard" Ventura. As governor of Minnesota, he primarily taught the state what they could accomplish without him. His platform mostly came down to two soundbites applied as "solutions":
Unicameral legislature
Light rail transport
Other than that, he was just another conservative governor in Minnesota's sad march towards ever-more-conserva
Re: (Score:2)
(a) The GOP has the majority, though that has amounted to roughly shag-all in the way of fiscal sanity.
Even when the GOP did not have numeric majority they were in the driver's seat as they took ownership some time ago of the meanings of "American", "patriotic", and other terms that are key to legislative agendas; they used them against the spineless democrats to silence discussion and progress on anything they disliked.
(b) Democrats have to, you know, reflect the will of the people who are going to turn out for the election. Or not.
Why only them? The GOP has happily flown the bird at the public demands on matters, telling the voters "they know what is best". Furthermore, by "the people" do you mean all of America or
Re: (Score:2)
More than once you have argued for the federal government to step in when you felt that state governments were doing the wrong thing.
Well, yes. That would be an example of the vertical checks and balances I was mentioning. You wouldn't want, for example, chattle slavery to return.
There are many definitions of liberty
One of the side effects of our Progressive setting of emotion over reason is imprecision of language. But that makes it easier for our liberal fascist overlords to keep the people divided and parked on the plantation.
Re: (Score:2)
Have I mentioned what a beautiful man you are in the last week or so?
Re: (Score:2)
More than once you have argued for the federal government to step in when you felt that state governments were doing the wrong thing.
Well, yes. That would be an example of the vertical checks and balances I was mentioning. You wouldn't want, for example, chattle slavery to return.
If you want to talk about slavery, we need to acknowledge that many of the additional "free market reforms" that your friends advocate for bring us much much closer to functional slavery than any other proposals that anyone would bring about.
Though in more immediate application, there are many times when you have called for the federal government to step in and prevent states fro making decisions that you simply don't agree with.
There are many definitions of liberty
One of the side effects of our Progressive setting of emotion over reason is imprecision of language. But that makes it easier for our liberal fascist overlords to keep the people divided and parked on the plantation.
So why is your definition inherently more accurate? Has it occurred to y
Re: (Score:2)
All that said, you could have been slightly more respectful and just said "no, I don't care for the Reform Party". But go ahead and play the victim card instead, you play it often.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought since you do seem to be warming towards Trump
Wut?
you could have been slightly more respectful
Dude, I'm so giving you far more respect than you merit. . .
Re: (Score:2)
we need to acknowledge that many of the additional "free market reforms" that your friends advocate for bring us much much closer to functional slavery
Functional slavery would more correctly be the debt shackles imposed by Progress.
Has it occurred to you that differing sets of priorities for "liberties" is not automatically a bad thing? Not everyone thinks that your notion of "freedom" - as applied to the market before the individual - is the most important.
Adolf certainly did not.
Re: (Score:2)
you could have been slightly more respectful
Dude, I'm so giving you far more respect than you merit. . .
So then if "respect than you merit" is reciprocal, I should abandon the high road and start trashing you regularly and writing snarky JEs about you. No thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
we need to acknowledge that many of the additional "free market reforms" that your friends advocate for bring us much much closer to functional slavery
Functional slavery would more correctly be the debt shackles imposed by Progress.
Some of us are familiar with a time in history when there was such a thing as "debtor's prison" (as more than just the metaphorical institution we have today). Looking at the power that large corporations exert over the federal government today (exhibit A being HIIBA 2010, though it is not really a surprise coup at all), we are only a hair away from not only a return to debtor's prison but a new kind of debtor's prison where the debt holders are themselves the prison wardens. Couple that with for-profit
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth noting here that the ones conscripting armies are not the socialists, though.
And even if they explicitly claim to be, you'll lay down a No True Scotsman in a jiffy, like the boss you always are.
Re: (Score:2)
. . .I should abandon the high road and start trashing you regularly and writing snarky JEs about you. No thank you.
I'm not supposed to feel trashed every time you erroneously throw around possessives ("your party"), then? As long as your special snowflake feelings retain their superiority, all is justified.
Re: (Score:2)
Our federal largess is pretty much a return to a debtor's prison.
No, it is not. A federal debt does not land individuals in actual, physical prison. You can claim to be "imprisoned" by the federal debt all you want, but in the end you are free to leave the country and go live somewhere else without concern for it ever following you. It is not at all the same as actual debtor's prison.
Yet there are those of both ends of the Progressive Party clamoring for more spending.
You are not paying attention to the calls from non-conservatives for more spending. The overwhelming majority of these calls are accompanied by how they will be paid for as to be - at
Re: (Score:2)
. . .I should abandon the high road and start trashing you regularly and writing snarky JEs about you. No thank you.
I'm not supposed to feel trashed every time you erroneously throw around possessives ("your party"), then?
No. You should not feel trashed when I say it, because you are a proud cheerleader of the GOP. You repeatedly tell us how great and infinitely awesome they are (even when their proposals are no different from what has been signed into law by the current POTUS who just happens to carry the letter of a different party). I'm not demonizing you by associating you with those who you choose to associate with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are none. Can you show me even one?
China. Now, go ahead and move your goalposts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you please restate your dodge in more vague, less coherent terms?
Ugg smash bad argument with rock!
Seriously, is that the best you can do, or are you honestly confused by what I just said? To refresh your memory and give you a chance to read it:
I'm surprised that it does not bother you at all to commit yourself the kind of hypocrisy in that comment that you would happily take me to task over. Weren't you previously claiming that someone other than yourself was holding different people to different rules?
In the unlikely event that someone else is reading this, your hypocrisy here is on how in your previous comment [slashdot.org] you happily took it upon yourself to apply a label to others on a whim, when you have more than once cried foul when others have attempted similar regarding labels that you hold dear. To be even more blunt, you just
Re: (Score:2)
To be even more blunt, you just tried to claim that the Chinese are somehow "socialists" (based on no facts whatsoever) yet you get your undies up in a bunch when anyone calls any president in history "conservative" as a result of actually evaluating the facts of their administrative actions.
Is there a distinction to be made that the Chinese call themselves "socialist", whereas #OccupyResoluteDesk has (to my knowledge) never confused himself with a "conservative" in any way, shape, form, or context?
None of which precludes your capacity to make stuff up, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a distinction to be made that the Chinese call themselves "socialist",
Actually, they almost never use that term over there any more, as far as I've seen. Many people call their system a "hybrid economy"; notice in particular that the state owns very few (if any) of the Chinese companies that now make pretty much every product sold at WalMart today.
#SillyHashTag has (to my knowledge) never confused himself with a "conservative" in any way, shape, form, or context
Obviously he won't during his own administration call himself a conservative, but history will absolutely classify him as such. Equally relevant is the fact that both Presidents Bush did call themselves conservative, and you hav
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you are insisting that your labels are correct, only because you say they are. Whenever anyone else suggests a label that you disagree with - regardless of factual support for it - you tell them that they are not "in good faith" or other such silliness, even though they supported the label vastly more so than you. In other words, your argument is hypocritical.
Now you're entering into fustakrakich realms of blindness to the degree to which your arguments apply to yourself, which is 100%.
And you're still incorrect about #OccupyResoluteDesk. Were he conservative, for example, his college transcripts and writings would be known and discussed. Instead, as for all of the godless Commie sodomites of the Left (if you'll forgive the pleonasm), the Codpiece Media runs interference.
The degree to which the country was duped by this no-talent rodeo clown is only going to b
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you are insisting that your labels are correct, only because you say they are. Whenever anyone else suggests a label that you disagree with - regardless of factual support for it - you tell them that they are not "in good faith" or other such silliness, even though they supported the label vastly more so than you. In other words, your argument is hypocritical.
Now you're entering into fustakrakich realms of blindness to the degree to which your arguments apply to yourself, which is 100%.
Have you read the words I wrote, or the words you just wrote? It is unquestionably correct that there is absolutely nothing about President Lawnchairs actions that in the least bit resemble communism, yet you insist that to be an accurate label just because you say so. Similarly, his actions are overwhelmingly conservative, yet you claim the opposite in spite of the facts.
What is really amusing about this is the fact that you should actually proudly accept him as a conservative. Under the Lawnchair Ad
Re: (Score:2)
you should actually proudly accept him as a conservative
I mean, it's a great troll, but wait: which one of us voted for him?
Re: (Score:2)
you should actually proudly accept him as a conservative
which one of us voted for him?
The point is what he has done; he has done all the things that you usually include on your "must" list for someone to be considered a conservative, and the economic results have been largely positive. The fact that I voted for him and despise his decisions further supports the notion that you should be championing him as demonstration of the benefits of conservatism. Similarly as it largely makes my life worse, I see him as a demonstration of the costs of conservatism on people who are not wealthy enough
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
misstating what I actually posted
No. You have repeatedly advocated for people to not vote. As I have stated, that makes you a hypocrite if you do vote when telling others that they should not .
And as I say frequently, I cannot force you to read what I write. That you make yourself look ridiculous by way of feeling obligated to hit "reply" and mash buttons when you see a comment from me is not my problem.
Re: (Score:2)
You have repeatedly advocated for people to not vote.
You have yet to show I said anything like that
Except of course for the times when I plainly showed you doing exactly that. I'm not going to go back and do it again, you're not worth the time. You're pretty good at wasting other peoples' time but I'm not going to let you waste my time on re-demonstrating something that I already demonstrated.
Re: (Score:2)
you have shown nothing
You can tell yourself that if it makes you feel better. It won't be supported by facts, though. Just as with smitty, I will not be held responsible for what you decide not to read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would I make up a fantasy of this sort?
F-bomb is a right jolly projector of a fellow.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And git off my lawn! (Score:2)
Stupid punk kids today, with your hula-hoops, rock and roll music, and pacman videogames!
Re: (Score:2)
git: 'off' is not a git command. See 'git --help'.
Did you mean this?
diff
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't let the resemblance to an argument there make you think that sound reasoning on things is a shared virtue.
Well, sure. This is still pretty much a poo-flinging fest that is interesting for 10 minutes a day at best.