Journal Bill Dog's Journal: a new strain 21
[From this afternoon, when I didn't have access to my saved link for the older JE creation interface here.]
I'm sitting here with my netbook in my recliner, in front of the tube with the volume muted. I was watching it for some news and then eventually muted it to go on the net, but to occasionally look up and see if FNC was covering anything interesting (usually not).
From the headline above the ticker at the bottom they were playing some of BHO's reaction to the GOP convention, quoting him as saying that Mitt only offered no new ideas and only old ideas of the past.
I watched for a minute and saw serious teleprompter reciting, but with an instance of that characteristic occasional interrupting of it by his snickering.
I have two categories of problems with the Left, in general. The first is that your ideas -- what you want for mankind -- are evil. But what is also just as evil is your tactics. You could be honest and earnest with people and not be evil in this second way, and just be evil in the "what" that you're pushing. But that hasn't worked for you guys, at least in America's history, so you adopt evil in the "how" as well (which is working, fabulously, if much too slowly for most of you).
So BHO publicly states that his opponents' are ideas of the past. This is true, of course. Both sides' ideas are from long ago. In fact, thinking about the history of man, it sure seems like the philosophy of authoritarian collectivism has been around a lot longer than that of libertarian individualism.
BHO is not a dumb man. He knows both sides' ideas are old ideas from the past, just as you and I know this. But the Left's tactics mostly boil down to "fooling the dummies", and that's what's going on here. He's of course trying to make the dummies, of which there is an asston in America, believe thru implication that it is only the Right's ideas that are from the past. (With the further implication that "from the past" is even a bad thing.)
So BHO is hugely despicable in both of the usual ways that all of the rest of you are, save the few here that are a bit clueless or a bit crazy or both. But he takes it one step further.
He's like the guy I occasionally played chess with in college, who was so much better at it than me/had tremendous advantage over me in that game, if he actually would've outwardly laughed as he enjoyed his advantage and how well the tricks he could play on me worked.
Only BHO is laughing in the face of the Right, for how well his trickery works on the dummies. Because he knows that both the Right and the (non-nomimal*) Left know it's crap, but the dummies don't, and furthermore the dummies don't even pick up on that tell (and in fact actually find it endearing!).
Most Lefties are dead serious about their religion, and I can appreciate that, independent of its evilness. For example I imagine someone like Hillary (who'll prolly resign from Sec of State shortly after BHO's re-election, and be the Dem's nominee for prez next time) would only stab you (metaphorically) with the knife multiple times because she just wants you (i.e. your political philosophy) dead.
But that's old-school, and BHO is of the newer, extra-sick variety of Leftist. He seems to want to stab and pull the knife out and then pause for a reaction of pain, and enjoy the moment before stabbing again. I see a little bit of that here, too, where most of you guys are just fighting for your side, but a few just write things to be cruel; where you know the deception won't work in that case, but you pile it on thick and savor the moment of just trying to be mean.
Unfortunately as evil grows stronger in the world and you guys find yourselves winning more and more, esp. where previously a given ploy would've never worked, your astoundment at how successful it's going and the confidence that'll bring will prolly turn more of you guys into effectively sporting the patented BHO smug grin, that can be seen between sections of serious-face and those momentary snickers when he's just laughing his ass off inside.
*My "nominal Left" is the mushy middle of the American electorate; those who haven't educated themselves about Marxism and made a conscious decision and said yep that's definitely for me, but those who've just been slid into it.
What is your version of utopia? (Score:1)
Would it be good old days of 19th century industrialism of coal dust and sludge and slave labor, where everybody knew their place, and submitted unconditionally to the authority of the company boss? You leave the impression that the feds were wrong to violate the property rights of the slave owner. Where does your "Mason-Dixon Line" reside? Does the government have no place in protecting individuals from the corrupt local authorities who will steal your property to put up a shopping mall, or refuse to allow
Re: (Score:1)
Just know that I'm generally opposed to the legalization of any more recreational drugs. From that you will feel comfortable that you know everything you care to know about me. I certainly do likewise, from what you wrote here.
Re: (Score:1)
Just looking for consistency in your viewpoint. You're all over the place on this freedom thing. I wonder why you seem more concerned about corporate liberties, while disparaging personal liberty, and community use of its resources to protect those liberties. I sense a strong conflict, and am interested in the thought process involved in resolving it. If you're not interested in sharing... eh... whatever.
Re: (Score:1)
I already had a semi-long conversation a year or two ago about this with someone else with the particular ruminations signature of your subclass of Leftist. So I already know how it ends, esp. in realizing afterward that it was going to end that way no matter what was said.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, I have a slightly different attitude in insisting nobody has any right to impose their 'morality' on others, nobody has the right to restrict what kinds of contracts a particular group can be party to, nor what substances they consume, nor what kind of activities they can engage in without scientifically proving harm to uninvolved people, and those that do are living dangerously, and putting their whole society at risk. If eternal warfare is what you want for future generations, I would question the k
Re: (Score:1)
I could troll you and tell you that you're inconsistent, being for telling people what they can't do with their land, but against telling people that they can't put dangerous substances in their bodies that make them lose control of themselves and would utterly break down society. But you wouldn't get the point. You'd completely miss it and start arguing how what you want to be allowed and disallowed is good and what I want is bad.
I already know everything about you, thinking-wise, from the cartoonish and c
Re: (Score:1)
Leftist - Makes you look like a real clown every time you use that word.
Land, air, and water are common properties that respects no human boundaries, you can't own it. You have no right to block rights of way. Oh you can buy, sell, pass on to your kids, but you and they are only are only the caretaker. It will be there after you're all gone. You can own what you produce on that land, but never the land itself. That will sidestep your silly collectivist crap. You can fully enjoy the fruits of your labor, but
Re: (Score:1)
Nice; you did exactly what I predicted (I knew you couldn't resist), even after I told you you would (!) (I knew that you're incapable of feeling any shame or embarassment). I.e. I know your subgenus and genus, respectively, too well.
I've gotten to the point where my biggest problem with Slashdot, maybe thankfully, is that it's simply dwindled down to there being only a handful left who really have anything to offer me. There's few left that are capable of (or are willing to let on to me that they're capabl
Re: (Score:1)
Nice; you did exactly what I predicted...
Happy to oblige You appeared to have heard a lot... Too bad you never listen..
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific proof is overrated. Use History instead.
Re: (Score:2)
HUH?!?!?!? Are you getting Bill Dog mixed up with me?
I've NEVER seen Bill Dog disparage personal liberty at all. Hint: I too consider recreational drugs to be exactly the opposite of liberty- the slavery of addiction and the liberty of corporate masters who create and sell the drugs.
Re: (Score:1)
Please, don't blame addiction on the drugs. We can go 'round and 'round about the harms caused by legal substances. If you want consistency in the law, you're going have to prohibit many more things. And the history of and the real motivation for prohibition speaks for itself very loudly. It is by prohibition that your corporate slave masters make their greatest profits, with all your biggest banks washing the money nice and clean. That goes for any product, and it is criminal in every form of the term. Not
Re: (Score:2)
"Please, don't blame addiction on the drugs."
If the chemical wasn't in the system, then the addiction would not occur.
" If you want consistency in the law, you're going have to prohibit many more things. "
And they should be. Or rather, they should be limited to controlled, safe tests.
"And to your other post. Show some history of the harm caused by pot.":
"Look, drugs are illegal in order to target and control specific groups of people, and to make money, off the books. It has nothing to do with harm."
Yep, a
Re: (Score:1)
If the chemical wasn't in the system, then the addiction would not occur.
It most certainly would! The addiction is already there. That too, has already been proven. The chemical is naturally produced by the brain, not the other way around. We use the drug to increase production*, temporarily satisfying the addiction. You couldn't possibly be more wrong. Blaming the drug is like blaming the apple in the Garden of Eden. It is the addictive personality you must treat. Counter the temptation, not the object of
Re: (Score:2)
"Show me a single instance where that happened, just one"
Did you bother to even READ THE LINK I GAVE YOU IN THE GP?!?!?!!?
"Are you really willing to commit murder to enforce your personal morals on the world? "
Yes. I fully agree with the purpose of Inquisitions. This too I've covered with BD in the past.
" Are you going to bulldoze the houses like Israel does with your army? "
If necessary.
"If B D is against abolishment of prohibition, as he has already stated that he is, then obviously he is a prohibitioni
Re: (Score:1)
Did you bother to even READ THE LINK I GAVE YOU IN THE GP?!?!?!!?
I would love to... Where did you hide it?
Are you really willing to commit murder to enforce your personal morals on the world?
Yes. I fully agree with the purpose of Inquisitions.
Okaaay... May the best man win. Can't argue with the obstinate.
Re: (Score:2)
I appologise. Apparently the URL tag no longer works on slashdot [go.com].
I even had to re-google this.
Re: (Score:1)
No apology needed. I took no offense.
Driving while impaired is a problem regardless of the substance. We can print the same propaganda and substitute anything you don't approve of. It in no way makes your case for incarceration and vilification. And I still contend that legal weed will reduce alcohol and more dangerous drugs consumption. So, overall the hazards are reduced. We'll never know until we try.
But all that means nothing when you insist on imposing your faith on me, or kill me for resisting. I'm no
Re: (Score:2)
Ammo control works far better than gun control, and we're still about 100 years away from computer-aided manufacture of real explosives. Draino bombs on the other hand, are now becoming common.
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Thanks for the tip... Less conventional, more creative defense mechanisms are always a plus.
Re: (Score:2)
My favorites are kinetic systems. Police armor does not protect against flying cows, to paraphrase Monty Python for a moment.