Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal Captain Splendid's Journal: Compare and contrast 91

Journal by Captain Splendid

Gabby Giffords gets shot by a right-wing nutjob.

Liberals: GUN CONTROL!!!
Conservatives: Crazy lone gunman. Nothing to do with gun laws or overheated rhetoric. Liberals need to stop politicizing this issue, etc.

Steve Scalise gets shot by left-wing nutjob.

Liberals: GUN CONTROL!!!
Conservatives: Liberal Trump hate has gotten out of hand! We really need to start monitoring social media, who knows how many more of them there are out there, etc.

This discussion has been archived.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

Compare and contrast More

Compare and contrast

Comments Filter:

  • I love the self-serving comments by Comrade Ryan and Rand Paul tho

  • Hard to politicize a devil worshiper. Pretty damn easy to politicize a communist.

    • Hard to politicize a devil worshiper.

      Notwithstanding that I think the description of Loughner as a devil worshiper is an exaggeration, I do believe you are correct.

      • Yeah, more just batshit insane, schizophrenic, and a drug abuser.

        Unlike this latest guy, who simply saw Republicans as a threat to the revolution of Bernie Sanders.

    • Pretty damn easy to politicize a communist.

      Let me know if you see one. I can't recall the last time one was in the news unless you count the leaders in China who still on occasion like to pretend that they are Communists. Even the leaders in Cuba have parted with the title upon realizing that they don't reflect its meaning.

      • In this case, he's the real thing; a Sanders supporter mad at the world for not providing him with food, clothing, and shelter: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/james-hodgkinson-shooter-left-behind-a-trail-of-bitterness-from-his-illinois-hometown/ [cbsnews.com]

        • Mad at the world? Perhaps. More likely just simply mad.

          What was the point of the link you provided though? It does not in any way support your bit about him being

          mad at the world for not providing him with food, clothing, and shelter

          All they said is that they volunteered for the Sanders campaign; it says nothing about what he wanted out of the government.

          • I'm not real sure I understand the difference between "Just Mad" and "Mad at the World". Perhaps I gave the wrong link- many Sanders supports have left much evidence on social media about how they want to kill Republicans, especially Trump, who they see as capitalist pigs eating at the public trough. Volunteering for the Sanders campaign alone should put you on a watch list these days- just as volunteering for antifa or the alt-right should. The civil war has started, there will be no stopping it this

            • I'm not real sure I understand the difference between "Just Mad" and "Mad at the World".

              I see plenty of gradations between them, including a set of the difference between mad==angry and mad==insane. You could also be mad (angry) at a specific person or group of people without being mad at all people.

              Perhaps I gave the wrong link- many Sanders supports have left much evidence on social media about how they want to kill Republicans, especially Trump, who they see as capitalist pigs eating at the public trough

              Your link did not support that. And why is that to be taken seriously when some unknown person posts that on social media, yet when known people publicly advocated killing Obama or throwing people in jail for the sole "crime" of being a democrat that was not a big deal?

              Volunteering for the Sanders campaign alone should put you on a watch list these days- just as volunteering for antifa or the alt-right should.

              Even if we collapse the

              • "And why is that to be taken seriously when some unknown person posts that on social media, yet when known people publicly advocated killing Obama or throwing people in jail for the sole "crime" of being a democrat that was not a big deal?"

                You sure made it a big deal every time it came up. However, surprising perhaps for the number of gun owning NRA members in the Tea Party, I don't remember anybody shooting up the Democratic Baseball Team.

                "Even if we collapse the political axis and look at them in terms o

                • Not to 'bring on' a revolution, but to cash in [motherjones.com]. The motives couldn't be simpler. Save the idealism for the brainwashed believers.

                • "And why is that to be taken seriously when some unknown person posts that on social media, yet when known people publicly advocated killing Obama or throwing people in jail for the sole "crime" of being a democrat that was not a big deal?"

                  You sure made it a big deal every time it came up.

                  It was a big deal for about a week, then the FBI brushed it off and the media forgot about it - even though it was a direct verbal threat against the life of the POTUS.

                  However, surprising perhaps for the number of gun owning NRA members in the Tea Party, I don't remember anybody shooting up the Democratic Baseball Team.

                  Because the only republicans who knew the democrats had a baseball team were the ones on the republican baseball team. The GOP tells their believers that they have exclusive ownership of all things American, including baseball and football.

                  "Even if we collapse the political axis and look at them in terms of actions and desired outcomes, there still exists a huge chasm between the Sanders left and the alt-right. The only reason why the Sanders left is labeled this way is because the media has been feasting at the trough of conspiracies over it. The proportion of Sanders supporters who are unstable is no higher than the proportion of supporters of any other politician from the democrats or republicans that you can name."

                  This guy was quite rational in wanting to bring on a revolution against the rich- and believed that this attack would be a springboard for the cause.

                  That's a whole lot of conjecture, there. Care to back it up? I have not seen any kind of communica

                  • That does remind me, how the hell did James Hodgkinson find out about this game, let alone the practice? I've never heard of this so-called tradition before, but apparently it has been going on for several decades?

                    • Why don't we just follow the line of your argument and you can go ahead and claim that the information was intentionally leaked to him by a democrat who wanted this to happen? From what you have written so far, it is pretty clear that this is the only conclusion you would accept. I would wager that had this happened last year and everything was reversed, you would have said it was due to information that was not properly secured (perhaps hosted on Hillary's evil email server?).

                    • I doubt that very strongly indeed, is the problem.

                      Regular Democrats don't want a revolution to upset their crony capitalist applecart any more than the Republicans do.

                    • Regular Democrats don't want a revolution to upset their crony capitalist applecart any more than the Republicans do.

                      Add in 'politicans' as the third word there, and sure. Otherwise the demographics don't really bear you out on that statement.

                    • The politicians are a reflection of the voters, so you are wrong.

                    • Regular Democrats don't want a revolution to upset their crony capitalist applecart any more than the Republicans do.

                      If that is the case, then you just stated that the shooter is not a

                      Regular Democrat

                      Which was one of my first statements.

                    • The politicians are a reflection of the voters, so you are wrong.

                      If that were true, there'd be no need for Bernie Bros.

                    • ? What does that mean? Every faction has its appeal to somebody. And they all make the same noises. Which leads to my first question about the journal, what is there to contrast? Appealing to their base is what they are supposed to do, and the results reflect that perfectly. Politicians and their voter base are equally self serving.

                    • My position is that the shooter was a communist- about as much of a "regular democrat" as an alt-right KKK member is a "regular republican"

                    • Appealing to their base is what they are supposed to do

                      Which is a whole different thing to actually doing the things the base wants. See the Democrats on Wall St. or the Republicans on abortion or illegal immigration.

                    • My position is that the shooter was a communist

                      Which is totally irrelevant, aside from the chosen target. There are people who seek out or make up a reason to kill. Not that the public doesn't make up reasons why they did it. It's just part of their confirmation bias. Conflicting or consistent statements make no difference. Both of your factions are making the best of it in their own little way, and it effectively keeps their base focused, or more correctly, distracted.

                    • Issues that attract attention and money and draw votes, but have no effect on business, except maybe raising retail prices.

                      And what about the Democrats on Wall St.? Wall Street is bigger than ever.. The revolving door spins as fast as always. Warren's dog and pony show has gone nowhere.

                    • It's fucking hilarious the aggressive tone you take even when you're agreeing with me.

                    • My position is that the shooter was a communist-

                      You still haven't provided any support for that argument. Might as well call him a Martian at this point if you can't be bothered to provide any support.

                      a communist- about as much of a "regular democrat" as an alt-right KKK member is a "regular republican"

                      I disagree. A Communist is much further removed from the democratic party than an alt-right KKK member is from the GOP. Just look at the advisors that Trump still holds on to. It doesn't matter what republicans might say about how Trump does or does not reflect their own personal views, as their endorsed candidate he is the official standard bearer of

                    • Sorry you took it that way. I'm just wondering what there is to contrast in your factional politics.

                    • I'm just wondering what there is to contrast

                      The republican response to gun violence? It's right there in the JE.

                    • And my other point is that NONE of these outlying positions, communist or antifa or alt right, can be considered insane. They're quite rational, if from a different viewpoint than normal. They certainly are NOT regular Republicans or regular Democrats, but nor are they truly insane, despite the violence their politics leads them to.

                      The person who was involved in the mass murder in Arizona, however, was decidedly NOT sane by any stretch of the imagination.

                    • And my other point is that NONE of these outlying positions, communist or antifa or alt right, can be considered insane. They're quite rational, if from a different viewpoint than normal.

                      Are the positions insane? From the strictest sense of the term they cannot be as a position is just an idea and not a person. Some positions might be further detached from reality than others, but the position can't really be called insane as it is only a position. The birther position (as but one example) is not inherently itself insane - even given that it is completely conterfactual - though people who hold on to it well can be.

                      That said, when one starts at a position and then believes that the po

                    • It means nothing, it's how they motivate each other. Same as the democrat mantra for 'gun control'. They say different prayers to their naked emperors, so what? It doesn't differentiate their character. If there is anything to contrast, it's that the republican style is still winning elections. They go with what works. Is there something beyond that that I should know about? Is Twitter's valuation up or down?

                    • It means nothing

                      Not what we're arguing about.

                      it's how they motivate each other

                      Sure, but it's still not what we're arguing about.

                      Same as the democrat mantra for 'gun control'.

                      Do I understand this to mean that you're saying democrats don't actually care about sane firearms legislation?

                      It doesn't differentiate their character.

                      Not what we're arguing about and not even remotely on topic.

                      it's that the republican style is still winning elections

                      Well, that and structural reasons, b

                    • So then, do tell, what is there to contrast, aside from the targeted audience?

                    • I'm going to need an answer to my question to be able to properly answer yours.

                    • What? About democrat politicians and firearms laws? They follow the money just like republicans. The rhetoric is theater.

                    • They follow the money just like republicans.

                      Using that logic, then it appears we're in agreement that the Democrats actually do give a shit about sane gun control laws.

                    • Just look at the people who support Bernie Sanders for that matter.

                      Oh, and the presidential candidate is only a puppet, and significantly NOT the leader of any party. Hillary Clinton found that out the hard way.

                    • Donald Trump isn't the leader of the GOP. What kind of idiot are you?

                    • Just look at the people who support Bernie Sanders for that matter.

                      For what matter? They are not communists, at least not he overwhelming vast majority of them. If even .1% of them were actual communists that would be a surprise, it is almost certainly far fewer than that.

                      Oh, and the presidential candidate is only a puppet, and significantly NOT the leader of any party.

                      You're simply wrong there. The candidate is the effective leader of the party, by definition. You should look up how the political parties work in this country.

                      Hillary Clinton found that out the hard way.

                      You mean the candidate who beat the sitting POTUS by several million votes? She was indeed the leader of the party when she was the nomine

                    • Wrong. He is absolutely the leader of the party, that is how the parties work in this country. If you have the white house, whoever from your party sits there is your party leader. You can pretend otherwise but you're only fooling yourself.

                      Now, as leader that does not mean that every GOP member or elected GOP politician agrees with him, but he is their leader nonetheless. There is no arguing against this, you are simply wrong.
                    • Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump.

                      Wait, the guy who got 2 million less votes than Hillary was going to beat Trump? In what magical universe?

                      Hell Jimmy Carter would have wiped the flood with him as well

                      2016 Carter? Maybe, but way too old to pull it off.
                      1980 Carter? Not a fucking chance.

                    • Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump.

                      Wait, the guy who got 2 million less votes than Hillary was going to beat Trump?

                      Yes, Sanders would have beaten Trump easily. As would have anyone who did not have a last name of Clinton.

                      Hillary Clinton was the only democrat who could have possibly lost to Trump. Her name alone brought out droves of republicans who would have otherwise not bothered to vote; they were so enraged by her being on the ticket that they would have voted for Satan to prevent her from moving back in to 1600 Pennsylvania.

                      There were people who were otherwise reasonable who were actually convinced that Hi

                    • Her name alone brought out droves of republicans who would have otherwise not bothered to vote

                      Considering Trump did slightly worse than Romney with likely GOP voters, that's not a tenable argument.

                      they were so enraged by her being on the ticket

                      That's kind of a pointless argument when the right-wing got enraged anytime she drew breath over the last 25 years.

                      Hillary might have been a terrible candidate, but the Dem bench is is nowhere near as deep or resilient as you like to think it is, and ru

                    • Her name alone brought out droves of republicans who would have otherwise not bothered to vote

                      Considering Trump did slightly worse than Romney with likely GOP voters, that's not a tenable argument.

                      There is a lot of nuance missing there. Who is being counted as a "likely GOP voter"? Which voting or polling situation are you looking at? I personally know republicans who voted for Trump only because of their disdain for Hillary; many of them said they would have actually considered voting for Bernie over Trump as they realized that Trump was scum but they couldn't stomach the idea of another President Clinton.

                      they were so enraged by her being on the ticket

                      That's kind of a pointless argument when the right-wing got enraged anytime she drew breath over the last 25 years.

                      Which was itself enough anger to bring the republicans to the voting booths in November, i

                    • There is a lot of nuance missing there.

                      Could be, what did you have in min...

                      I personally know republicans who voted for Trump only because of their disdain for Hillary

                      Oh, for fuck's sake.

                      Her presence was enough to whip their anger up into enough of a fury to get them to vote for someone that many of them recognize to be a repulsive fascist egomaniac.

                      I'll repeat: Since Romney, not exactly a favourite of the hardcore right, did better than Trump with likely GOP voters, that analysis is dea
                    • Hillary Clinton drove GOP voters who would have been otherwise willing to sit out the election to come out and vote for Trump. That's all there is to it. She essentially came with several million votes worth of baggage in the form of voters who harbored such lasting hatred against her name that they were willing to go out and vote for a maniacal shithead just to keep her out of the white house.

                      I had warned every democrat who would listen that they would be starting with a huge disadvantage if Hillary
                    • That's all there is to it.

                      You're willing to stake that claim on the shoulders of your little anecdote from the previous post? For the third time: There is no data to support this position. Find me some and we'll talk.

                      She essentially came with several million votes worth of baggage in the form of voters who harbored such lasting hatred against her name that they were willing to go out and vote for a maniacal shithead just to keep her out of the white house.

                      And, not only is there no data to s

                    • *Heh* You guys... [youtube.com]

                      You circle continuously [youtube.com]

                    • She essentially came with several million votes worth of baggage in the form of voters who harbored such lasting hatred against her name that they were willing to go out and vote for a maniacal shithead just to keep her out of the white house.

                      [...] presupposes that conservatives don't hate anything they deem liberal.

                      No, it merely acknowledges that there is a scale to their hatred. There is quite nearly nothing in the universe that boils conservative blood more quickly than the name Clinton. Because of this, a very large number of conservatives who would have otherwise been willing to sit back and take a loss on this presidential cycle went out and voted Trump just to spite the Clinton name

                      "Well, sure, the system's fucked, but it's her fault she din't put on a clown suit and stage a variety show!"

                      That is a strange conclusion you made, there. My argument is that Hillary started with the deck stacked against her. Not becau

                    • No, it merely acknowledges that there is a scale to their hatred.

                      Again, go hang out on conservative websites. There is no scale.

                      There is quite nearly nothing in the universe that boils conservative blood more quickly than the name Clinton.

                      No, that only applies to liberal purity ponies. Conservatives want Pelosi locked up just as much as Hillary.

                      Because of this, a very large number of conservatives who would have otherwise been willing to sit back and take a loss on this presidential cycle

                    • Maybe you should. The people who pay the campaign donations own the party, NOT the candidates and certainly NOT the puppets they get elected.

                    • Conservatives want Pelosi locked up just as much as Hillary.

                      More. Clinton isn't a heretic from a conservative religion, Pelosi has actively tried to suggest her Catholic upbringing led her to support abortion.

                    • Heh, When it comes to this stuff, you're talking to professional wrestling fans. He's posting such absurd shit, it's impossible to tell if he's for real or playing Poe's law.

                    • Yeah well, good riddance to the party that loses votes by ignoring your "liberal purity ponies". I certainly won't miss 'em.

                    • Yeah well, good riddance to the party that loses votes by ignoring your "liberal purity ponies".

                      That's actually a good point. Catering to the fringe has done wonders for the GOP, after all

                    • They're not so "fringe-y" they can't win, are they? It really is the slimy center and their urge to 'compromise' that is so repulsive and demoralizing. They stand for nothing and discourage participation. That's what Clinton did. That's why she 'lost'. She didn't 'excite' the republicans into anything (though I do enjoy d_r's twisted tales). She just handed the election to them, and with Trump being a friend of the family, it's not really a big deal to her or the party anyway. They're making more money than

                    • They're not so "fringe-y" they can't win, are they?

                      That's not the reason they're winning. But you're not interested in things like gerrymandering and right-wing billionaires working overtime to tip the scales, so we'll move along.

                      She just handed the election to them

                      As I told your brain-dead compatriot, if you have evidence for this assertion, please do provide.
                    • I'm sorry that your lack of knowledge of the parties work in this country caused you to write such a short reply to what I wrote. If you'd ever like to read up on it and discuss it later, I'm open.

                    • :-) You never will stop making excuses for losers, will you?

                      Clinton lost because she presented little to no opposition to republican policies. But you got excuses for that too.

                    • Clinton lost because she presented little to no opposition to republican policies.

                      Such as what?

                      But you got excuses for that too.

                      TIL asking you to substantiate your claim is making excuses. But as ever, it's all of us who are fools and trolls, not you.

                    • Such as what?

                      Little mundane things, like taxes, the revolving door with the banks and Wall Street CEOs and lobbyists, the wars, civil rights(where she puts up but a token fuss about bathrooms and marriage and nothing about corrupt cops and the prison system and prohibition), and of course universal health care. All of the same old shit 'compromises' Obama made would just be repeated with her. The feigned 'opposition' and her shift 'leftward' in the face of Bernie's popularity during the primaries (where the

                    • like taxes

                      Say what now? [motherjones.com]

                      civil rights(where she puts up but a token fuss

                      You're seriously gonna go with that shit right after the GOP shredded the VRA? The balls on you.

                      and nothing about corrupt cops and the prison system and prohibition

                      Nope. [themarshallproject.org]

                      All of the same old shit 'compromises' Obama made would just be repeated with her.

                      Ahh, a magic crystal ball plus a belief than presidents get to write laws all by themselves combine for one shitty assertion there. (where the real rigging was
                    • You're very quick to dismiss what I say, but I haven't seen you offer up an alternative explanation to what happened. How did a deeply unpopular candidate manage to win enough states to take the white house?

                      Family values voters should have been disgusted by him for his three failed marriages.

                      Self-respecting women should have been revolted by his pattern of sexual assault and tendency to brag about it.

                      Hard-line conservatives should have been leery about the fact that he has held almost every positio

                    • Yeah, I always forget, nature and pavolian animal psychology are all conspiracy theories to you.

                      the US is a bully, and a shitty one at that.

                      Oh dear! That's funny! What makes the biggest and most successful bully on the planet a 'shitty' one? Is there another kind? And beside, they learned from the very best of the best [independent.co.uk]. Singling out the US is just a little silly. They are just number 1. Somebody has to be. More than anything they are just muscle that also serves. Like the man says you should go out and cel

                    • None of them are real. It's all just smoke and mirrors to make you think voting counts for something.

                    • Oh, I understand the parties. They take money from lobbyists to write regulations that feed their crony capitalists, all while pretending that the front men actually do something worthwhile.

                    • Yes, you know that, I know that, but they like to play their little game here. I mean, our votes could count for something, but people actually have to vote for something to make it work, or at least to see if it works, not just go along with what the TV tells them. That's like being in the control group in a drug testing lab.

                    • all while pretending that the front men actually do something worthwhile.

                      Nah, they don't have to do that anymore. Look at the kinds of people that are winning despite six months of Trump. It's rock 'em sock 'em robots now, and the republican faction runs damn near unopposed. And the DNC doesn't need to win anyway to rake in all the money they're making now. Regardless, we're still looking at the regular ~95% reelection rate, with the usual minor shifts between ying and yang (No, this time it's not different

  • That they really don't have an idea of how many nuts with guns are out there? Then maybe it's a good idea to require some sort of control on who can own a gun - like, say, excluding paranoid schizophrenics , people with a history of gun violence, etc.

    • That they really don't have an idea of how many nuts with guns are out there?

      Well, no. It's a rhetorical device. After all, it would be irresponsible not to speculate.

      Then maybe it's a good idea to require some sort of control on who can own a gun - like, say, excluding paranoid schizophrenics , people with a history of gun violence, etc.

      No no no. That's what the liberals want you to think. Obviously the problem is liberalism itself, a well known mental disorder that, as we've now had amply

    • That they really don't have an idea of how many nuts with guns are out there?

      A couple years ago I bought a gun in New York State; from the moment I decided which gun to buy until the moment I was in my car with it was a shorter time span than the following week when I went to buy Sudafed for my wife - and that was buying a gun from a retailer (Bass Pro Shops in that case). If I had bought it from a gun show it could have been even quicker yet.

      We likely have a better idea of how many unstable people have guns in Mosul than in 'Merica.

      Then maybe it's a good idea to require some sort of control on who can own a gun - like, say, excluding paranoid schizophrenics , people with a history of gun violence, etc.

      That would be hard work. Our government do

      • Admittedly the situation is pretty hopeless. Too many people - including politicians from the two major parties - profit from gun violence. There probably isn't a solution until the body count goes way, way higher.

        • There probably isn't a solution until the body count goes way, way higher.

          I'm not sure that would produce a solution either. I think there is a very good chance that the situation has gone too long to be solvable at all. We already have more guns in the US than people who are legally allowed to own them. Even if gun sales stopped this evening forever, we likely wouldn't see a substantial shift within any of our lives if that was all that was done. I don't know anyone who wants to end ammo sales, either - and every time we get a democrat in the white house ammo sales go throu

          • I wish we had two distinguishable parties.

            LOL! Coming from you, that's really quite fantastic, but still meaningless, since one faction still has your support.

            • They are one party based on what they do, but two based on what they say.

              Unlike you, I do not claim to have the ability to read their minds or forecast their actions. Hence I vote based on what they say they will do.

              Unlike you, I do not run around discouraging people from voting in the hopes that somehow that will change the course of things.

              Unlike you, I do not mock people who vote for candidates who are actually running for office.

              • They are one party based on what they do, but two based on what they say.

                So funny to hear you say the things I told you so many years ago.

                Hence I vote based on what they say they will do.

                Yes, we already know that. You're just like the other 98% that do the same. Hence, we have republicans and democrats dominating the entire narrative. Too bad you fail to take the actual record of the party/corp they serve into account. If you did, you actually could predict what they will do. You believe your faction becaus

                • "You're just like the other 98% that do the same."

                  "Too bad you fail to take the actual record of the party/corp they serve into account."

                  "You believe your faction because you want to, based on nothing but emotion."

                  "And since you lie more than Trump"

                  "You are the typical democrat fanboi, blurting out without any evidence."

                  "So,carry on... You're fun to watch."

                  "You provide good material for the other side. And at the same time, you beautifully illustrate your similarities to them."

                  It's pitiful what you gotta do

                  • Eh, you're just another fanboi yourself with nothing to say. Voting on what your lying politicians say is the very definition of gullible. But please, continue. Comic relief is always a good thing in these mad times.

                    I don't feel shitty at all. That's just another one of your fantasies, part of your own projection, something you gotta do I guess.

                    • If you spent half as much time actually working on expressing your...ideas as you do shitting on other people, you might actually be dangerous. But all we get from you is forced humour and deflection and a plethora of excuses as to why that doesn't make you a vicious little troll.

                      But go on, keep telling us how horrible we are while offering nothing new and jerking yourself off to the sound of it, and we'll keep treating you like the drunk racist uncle we have to deal with at thanksgiving.

                    • You gave us Trump. What else can be said?

                    • The knots you're going to tie yourself into trying to explain how someone who's not a US citizen 'gave you Trump' should be an absolute delight to behold. Please continue.

                    • Please continue.

                      Eh, now you just imitate and otherwise make shit up, poorly, through projection..

                    • Don't slink away just yet, weasel boy. You made a non-sequitur response to me calling you a chucklefuck and I did you a solid and humoured you because it was so wrong-headed and amusing. Your choices are to double down on your stupidity or admit you don't really think things through. Just going for the standard non-sequitur response a second time in a row is not an available option to a rugged iconoclast such as yourself.

                    • There's nothing to 'slink' from. You're just being a goof, and you really like to project!

                  • It's pitiful what you gotta do on any given day in order not to feel like a piece of shit yourself, isn't it?

                    You kidding? Just like Trump, he almost certainly wakes up every morning congratulating himself on being the very pinnacle of human evolution. Why else would he so generously devote so much of his time to aiding the unwashed masses here at drudgedot?

        • There probably isn't a solution until...

          There is no solution until the Party is voted out. Nothing can possibly change while they drive the narrative and remain in power. Quite simple actually. But, self importance and personal pride rule the day, and we get what we have as the result.

          • We get the government we deserve. Has nothing to do with political parties, except to the extent that people are too easily brainwashed, so same result - you get the government you deserve.

            The racist, ossified, ignorant portions of the populations in the UK and US are sufficient to explain both Brexit and Trump. Both countries got the governments they deserved. You want a more closed society, you can't complain about the consequences when you get one. But watch out what happens when your declining numbers

            • We get the government we deserve. Has nothing to do with political parties, except to the extent that people are too easily brainwashed, so same result - you get the government you deserve.

              Absolutely, but tell that to the democrats here, or just see the response I get from them :-)

  • Thought control is where the meat is.

    Compare and contrast what? The grunts of two primitive tribes? The velocity of various unladen swallows?

    How easy it is for these 'nut jobs' to prime the audience before the climatic money shot! (oops)

Slashdot Top Deals

Remember, UNIX spelled backwards is XINU. -- Mt.

Close