Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Fun new Smitty Conspiracy for July 2023 - VP Edition! 34
So apparently in some alternate reality, the coke found in the White House is actually a deep state conspiracy to take down VP Kamala Harris , because ... reasons.
But fret not, as Smitty proudly tells us that his conspiracy is supported by at least one of his fellow cheerleaders .
But fret not, as Smitty proudly tells us that his conspiracy is supported by at least one of his fellow cheerleaders .
Uhhhh... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just trolling you. But it sure sounds like they're lining up the Veep's departure.
Those two sentences seem to directly contradict each other. If your bit about democrats trying to get rid of VP Harris has any connection to reality then why would you be trolling me with it? Pick one side of the line, and stick to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Always with the bossy attitude.
My request for you to at least occasionally approach reality is bossy in what way? You're free to keep spouting your favorite conspiracies here all you want. You certainly still have an audience for it, even as rapidly as it is dwindling here.
Re: (Score:2)
at least occasionally approach reality
For "things that I agree with" values of "reality". You're such a beautiful authoritarian, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
authoritarian
How could I possibly be an "authoritarian" on slashdot? I have no ability to force you to do anything. I ask you to provide facts to support your conspiracies, and you are free to continue choosing not to do so. I have no power over you whatsoever. You can choose to continue spouting anti-factual conspiracies if you want.
Re: (Score:2)
How could I possibly be an "authoritarian" on slashdot?
Within this scope, communication with you is generally bereft of all humor and grace. In other words: "Lighten up, Francis."
Re: (Score:2)
How could I possibly be an "authoritarian" on slashdot?
Within this scope, communication with you is generally bereft of all humor and grace. In other words: "Lighten up, Francis."
Words.
Once upon a time, they had meaning. Do they still have meaning? Or does "authoritarian" just mean anything you want it to mean? Is it now acceptable as a descriptor for anything that hurts your feelings?
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, they had meaning.
Elsewhere, you claim that a fact is insultable. You tell me, boss.
Re: (Score:2)
Once upon a time, they had meaning.
Elsewhere, you claim that a fact is insultable.
Are you tired of trying to make a claim of "authoritarian" when you know you cannot possibly support it, and now you're trying to pretend that your lack of facts are somehow capable on their own of supporting something?
You seem to really enjoy spreading new conspiracies here. I'll give you credit, you have introduced new conspiracies to me that nobody else mentioned to me before you. That said, I'm not aware of one yet that turned out to be any better connected to reality than pizzagate.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you tired of trying to make a claim of "authoritarian" when you know you cannot possibly support it, and now you're trying to pretend that your lack of facts are somehow capable on their own of supporting something?
You seem to really enjoy spreading new conspiracies here. I'll give you credit, you have introduced new conspiracies to me that nobody else mentioned to me before you. That said, I'm not aware of one yet that turned out to be any better connected to reality than pizzagate.
I would that you had the self-awareness to grasp that you're underscoring my point about you being authoritarian quite thoroughly here, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you tired of trying to make a claim of "authoritarian" when you know you cannot possibly support it, and now you're trying to pretend that your lack of facts are somehow capable on their own of supporting something?
You seem to really enjoy spreading new conspiracies here. I'll give you credit, you have introduced new conspiracies to me that nobody else mentioned to me before you. That said, I'm not aware of one yet that turned out to be any better connected to reality than pizzagate.
I would that you had the self-awareness to grasp that you're underscoring my point about you being authoritarian quite thoroughly here, sir.
As you have a fondness for applying new meanings to words on a whim, let's go to an information source that favors neither your team nor anyone excluded from it. Merriam-Webster defines authoritarian as [merriam-webster.com] :
: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
Care to tell us how you see either of those relating to anything I have written here? I'm merely asking you to tell us why any of your conspiracies should be taken seriously as they have so far pretty well never been shown to have factual support. That has nothing in common with those definitions of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The news counter your claim... Re:Uhhhh... (Score:2)
It would appear they forgot that bit about pinning it on Harris and running her out of town for it. Even if your promised 6 month timer pans out they only have to very early July now to push her out over this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was sharing an MSNBC remark.
You were sharing a carefully edited MSNBC remark. It was clipped off before the end of the sentence, to support their hypothesis of this being some sort of weird conspiracy intended to remove the VP.
Nonetheless I just shared with you one of many sources that one can easily find that show that the Secret Service has closed its investigation into the matter, and has no suspects. Unless your next conspiracy is that the Biden Administration was so clumsy in their attempt to remove the VP that they coul
Re: (Score:2)
I was sharing an MSNBC remark.
You were sharing a carefully edited MSNBC remark.
OK, so, a carefully edited speculation does not a conspiracy make. When not drilling down to the point of parsing punctuation, another of you preferred approaches seems to be inflating context into some sort of strawman zeppelin that you can cruise around in.
Re: (Score:2)
I was sharing an MSNBC remark.
You were sharing a carefully edited MSNBC remark.
OK, so, a carefully edited speculation does not a conspiracy make.
When you have nothing else to base your claim on then that, it certainly does. You have provided no factual evidence to support your claim, and indeed the fact that the investigation has already ended supports that your conspiracy is nothing more than conspiratorial.
Though calling the MSNBC report "speculation" is not accurate either. They did report the facts as they were known at the time regarding where the cocaine was found. What your fellow cheerleaders did though was intentionally truncate the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You could just admit that your friends got it wrong
Some chatter was passed; you're building Yet Another Castle In The Air (YACITA); I'm pointing and laughing at you.
Re: (Score:2)
you're building Yet Another Castle In The Air
Really? Me? You have left a long list of conspiracies here that you have proudly attempted to sell. I cannot find one that ever was found to be supported by reality. The castles seem to be yours, not mine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I was regurgitating the old conspiracies of Dick Cheney being tied to 9/11 to drive up the price of oil, you would certainly as
Re: (Score:2)
One would be inclined to feel trapped in some Kafka-esque maze with you, were the capacity to laugh at the bollocks on offer not so well-developed on my end.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that any presentation of facts would result in dialogue with you.
You hold that belief, yet you have no facts to support it. I ask you, why do you believe that? You have many times presented me with conspiracies and opinions. When asked for facts though I am not aware of a time when you have ever presented any.
You are of course entitled to hold whatever opinion of me you want to hold. That doesn't change the fact that you have not presented facts when asked.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that any presentation of facts would result in dialogue with you.
You hold that belief, yet you have no facts to support it.
A mere decade of dialogue is so much mootness.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that any presentation of facts would result in dialogue with you.
You hold that belief, yet you have no facts to support it.
A mere decade of dialogue is so much mootness.
It's been a decade of you sharing your opinions and links to your favorite editorials and conspiracies. Can you find a time where you shared actual facts in that decade? You've told us many times what you wanted to see happen, but I'm not aware of a time where it has come to pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Were you needing to be declared the victor again?
You have been wrong on that assumption every time you have made it, I'm not sure why you keep making it.
You seem to be needing some sort of victory lap,
You could not be more wrong. I am asking you to show me where you have rolled out a conspiracy that turned out to be supported by facts. You could search through your comments if you wanted to, and find where I have told you that you were sharing a conspiracy here. You have great faith in your conspiracies, and I'm wondering if even one has turned out to be connected to reality.
Re: (Score:2)