Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Idea for new invention: power generation through word twisting 138

Journal by smittyoneeach

The workings of other human minds continue to fascinate, as what amounts to Making Stuff Up out of whole cloth rages in the greymatter of others:

That is a very strange way to admit that your goals support terrible things happening to people who have not been given a chance to defend themselves in a fair trial.

Except that simply has not happened. I tell you: you spend a career supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, the 5th Amendment of which states:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I suppose I could get insulted or something; these slanders are about as valid as accusing me of immorality with farm animals. What would be more useful, though, would be to figure out how to attach all that logical torque to a turbine somehow. With the proper engineering, I'm sure we could light a small city.

This discussion has been archived.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

Idea for new invention: power generation through word twisting More

Idea for new invention: power generation through word twisting

Comments Filter:
  • You have been dodging the matter quite successfully over the past several years though. This time you claim to care about the 5th amendment; although you have shown before that you do not respect all parts of the constitution equally, at all times.

    So what would you do then if a trial were held and he were found not guilty? Hold another trial until you get what you want? You certainly have thrown out enough conspiracy theories already that if the first one were to proceed towards prosecution (really t

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) * Works for Slashdot

      you have shown before that you do not respect all parts of the constitution equally, at all times

      Perhaps, but so what? I don't respect the 16th and 17th Amendments very much. What's that got to do with anything? I accept they are law, and respect them in that sense, and defend them as such, but I would be happy to remove them as law, and I suspect the same goes with smitty1e, so if that is what you mean by "respect," you're lying. Again. As usual.

      So what would you do then if a trial were held and he were found not guilty? Hold another trial until you get what you want?

      Have you stopped beating your mother? (Oldie, but goodie, and completely appropriate.)

      But don't start pretending to care about the rule of law now. You didn't care before.

      You're a liar. Ibid etc. ad nauseam.

      • I don't respect the 16th and 17th Amendments

        So what gives you the right to disregard parts of the constitution? Those amendments were added with the mechanisms put in place for our federal government to use for amending the document. Why are you special and allowed to disregard parts that you don't like? You should take, or reject, the document in full.

        Of course, you have shown that you do that with other documents as well - the Bible comes to mind.

        defend them as such

        Really? What are you doing to defend them when you are stating that you do not respect them? O

        • I don't respect the 16th and 17th Amendments

          So what gives you the right to disregard parts of the constitution? Those amendments were added with the mechanisms put in place for our federal government to use for amending the document. Why are you special and allowed to disregard parts that you don't like? You should take, or reject, the document in full.

          Wow, you really are a dense piece of work. To say one lacks respect for something, e.g. the 16th Amendment, is not to say one "disregards" it, the way, say, President Obama disregards the Affordable Care Act [foxnews.com]. Is it your contention that Pudge disregards the 16th Amendment, and is, therefore, a tax cheat?
          If that is a correct inference, such an allegation would be as bonkers as your claim that I disregard the 5th Amendment, as cited in this JE.
          What ever happened to the day when we gave the other person the b

          • What ever happened to the day when we gave the other person the benefit of the doubt in conversations?

            I gave you the benefit of the doubt - many, many times. At several different occasions I directly asked you if you wanted to have an impartial investigation recommend whether or not to proceed with a fair trial - and if you would accept that conclusion. Not once did you say you would accept such a result. Now you are pretending to be concerned about the 5th amendment, while rejecting other amendments.

            It appears that you are willing to set the entire country ablaze just to drive out one person who yo

            • I accept the election results.
              Increasingly, reality is just that thing you brush aside.

              If a mob of people like yourself organizes to pull him out forcefully

              Nobody but you is mentioning force. No one.

              • I accept the election results.

                How many times have you said

                elections have consequences

                ?

                Sure, you accept that an election occurred but you certainly are not content with the outcome or willing to allow the re-elected POTUS to finish his second term if you can prevent it.

                If a mob of people like yourself organizes to pull him out forcefully

                Nobody but you is mentioning force. No one.

                Your path has a very high probability of leading to force, as it has almost no chance of leading towards a peaceful removal and removal is the only outcome many of you would be willing to accept. Not once have you been willing to describe force and violence as being unacceptable paths to your p

                • Only in your mad realm am I culpable for the outcomes of your fantasy life. The least you could do is throw in a good salad and some tea.
    • What Pudge said.

      • What Pudge said.

        I am sorry to see that you have lowered yourself to his level of discourse. You used to be willing to honestly represent your ideas and hold a respectful discussion. Endorsing the pudge-script only suggests you don't want to talk to anyone who doesn't share your views.

        • I'm happy to talk to any stable human being. A river of bile is a something else entirely. I suppose I should forgive you, on a theological level. And I do, being a low-baggage sort of fellow. But I wouldn't invite General Sherman's Lawn & Garden back for a reprise, and it's not clear what we have to talk about, when it appears you've absolutely nothing to offer but distortions.
          • You have been dodging direct questions for months. You have been consistently insulting me and mocking my comments - at least, the small parts of them that you opt to quote in your responses while disregarding the bulk of the text. Meanwhile you intentionally give partial statements of your aspirations and then feign insult when I dare to point out where they lead. It does not surprise me that you would compare what I have said to a

            river of bile

            That said I do not ask you for forgiveness. I ask for an opportunity t

            • If you are aiming for a comparison to a scorched earth policy, the policies you endorse come much closer than mine.

              Um, no, you're the one peddling all the violent rhetoric. I deliberately eschew such, for reasons we see here: it's too great a distraction.

              • If you are aiming for a comparison to a scorched earth policy, the policies you endorse come much closer than mine.

                Um, no, you're the one peddling all the violent rhetoric. I deliberately eschew such, for reasons we see here: it's too great a distraction.

                So you are saying that you don't want to talk about mob-driven overthrow not because it is extralegal in nature, but rather because you see it as distracting from your constant drumming for your conspiracy theories. Yet once again, you refuse to actually say that you would not approve of a violent overthrow of the POTUS (or anyone with a (D) after their name, for that matter).

                Equally important though is that your conspiracy theories would be enormously wasteful to pursue. You have a grocery list of con

                • No, really: the game where I empower you to force me to deny your every fickle, feverish, fetid, fecal fantasy is not one in which I have to engage. Get stuffed, fall off the planet, and land somewhere that you can find some playmates.

                  • your every fickle, feverish, fetid, fecal fantasy

                    There is nothing fantasy about this. You are rallying an angry mob that shares in your interest in getting rid of the POTUS; some with the same invalid reason that you so deeply love, and some for other invalid reasons.

                    More so, I have asked you only about one scenario and one scenario only. You are the one who is rallying the angry mob, not me. You know that you do not have the evidence for a trial nor do you have ample reason to believe that any such evidence exists to lead to a trial and a convict

                    • You are rallying an angry mob that shares in your interest in getting rid of the POTUS

                      No. No, I am not rallying an angry mod. YOU say this, but there is no reality with which to correlate the assertion beyond the borders of your noggin.

                      You are the one who is rallying the angry mob, not me.

                      Repetition does not create reality.

                      I wonder what you would install as a leader if your mob threw out Obama;

                      *yawn*. Are you done?

                    • You are rallying an angry mob that shares in your interest in getting rid of the POTUS

                      No. No, I am not rallying an angry mod. YOU say this, but there is no reality with which to correlate the assertion

                      You have, on many many occasions, indicated that you see removal of the POTUS as either a critical catalyst or necessary outcome of any of the following aims:

                      • "justice"
                      • "budgetary realignment"
                      • "defending the constitution"
                      • "consequences of ..."
                      • "the true will of the people"
                      • "elections as described in the original constitution"
                      • ... and various other bits of bullshit that don't come to mind immediately

                      Being as none of your situations actually have anywhere remotely close to enough actual data to support moving for

                    • Well... you don't feel that the law is required to remove the POTUS. You also don't feel that elections as we currently have them are the right way to elect federal representation. I don't expect you to actually answer this query but it is an interesting exercise. I can help but wonder who would be adequately authoritarian and extreme for your interests.

                      What, are you jacked into my nervous system? The only fascinating question here is whether you're (a) completely unhinged, or (b) portraying such a sick person for tasteless effect. Lord have mercy on your dented wastebasket personality.

                    • Your own comments demonstrate your aims. You can pretend that not to be the case, but its already out on display for us. You have behind you a multi-year history of championing various conspiracy theories that you see as being sufficient to warrant the immediate removal of the POTUS (legal system be damned!). You have further demonstrated plainly that you do not see the people of this nation as being qualified to elect all of their own representation in Washington.
                    • No.
                    • That is the response I would expect from you if the question was "do you support only using legal means to remove President Obama from the white house, accepting the possibility of legal means not resulting in impeachment?"
                    • What's become clear of late is that there are many voices in your head holding all manner of discussions.
                    • You have a long list of ways to avoid discussion. You are willing to take a stance, but not responsibility. You certainly can't seem to be bothered with thinking things through much anymore, either.
                    • You are at the point of Making Stuff Up out of whole cloth. It's not clear why you need any further external input.
                    • Not even close. You have been supporting my argument of you being driven by your desire to unseat Obama for years. You just seem to think that by dodging the matter instead of facing it head on you can avoid an actual conversation on the legality of your wishes and the outcomes that would come of them. If anyone is "Making Stuff Up" it's you, when you claim that this is a new conversation. You have been calling for removal of the POTUS for quite some time now. I presume that you wouldn't call for it wi

                    • You have been calling for removal of the POTUS for quite some time now. I presume that you wouldn't call for it without some plan in mind for what you would want to see happen next - regardless of whether or not the reality of the situation conforms to it.

                      The dumbest thing that could possibly occur would be to permit any literal or metaphorical martyring to occur.
                      This is probably among the reasons the Vichy GOP has been so silent; the thing that threatens Obama the most is his record, i.e. ObamaCare.

                    • The dumbest thing that could possibly occur would be to permit any literal or metaphorical martyring to occur.

                      Then you should have stopped at just one conspiracy theory for overthrowing Obama. Furthermore you should actually be willing to present evidence to support you goal of overthrowing him that goes beyond your constant refrain of "because I said so". Right now you - and others on the right - are leading a witch hunt against him that is even more pitiful than the one brought against Clinton. You are willing to commit untold volumes of time and treasure to pursue this for no justifiable reason.

                      It appears

                    • The important thing to recall here is that I'M the tinfoil hat nutjob here. Me. No one else. And for a certainty, not you, Tomás de Torquemada.
                    • I never called you a nutjob. I have shown you to be deeply embedded into hyperpartisan politics. The list I just gave was primarily an abridged list of the conspiracy theories that you have championed for the removal of the current POTUS (I'm sure I forgot some from that list).
                    • You've shown nothing but a propensity for accusation. It sounds as though you've succeeded in convincing yourself. Sad.
                    • Accusation? No, you have shown in your own writing that you want Obama out of the office for - at the very least - those causes and more. Accusing would be if I were to claim you wanted to be the executioner or in charge of selecting his replacement; those are things you have not directly stated aspirations for. However you have a long trail of comments and JEs here where you have directly demonstrated your wish to see Obama removed for causes that do not meet the requirements for impeachment based on ev
                    • I have no choice but to forgive you both the accusations [slashdot.org], and the inability to own up to the fact you've made them. I forgive you. You cannot halt the forgiveness. You can certainly ignore it; that's your choice. Your purpose for this behavior remains inscrutable. But this IS your behavior, both with me and Pudge.
                    • You don't have to like President Lawnchair, and obviously you do not. You are even free to hate him as much as you like provided you don't personally commit or threaten a violent act against him. You are also free to call for his removal over matters that do not warrant such actions, which you have done a great many times.

                      Similarly, I am also free to point out that you have on many occasions called for the removal of the POTUS under conditions that do not warrant his removal. You can pretend that you
                    • I really don't feel much about President Obama as a man.
                      What I feel is a great sadness/contempt for a people who have permitted a sad state of affairs to drag on for far too long.
                      Had Obama balked or whatever, a similar piece of work should have been trotted out.

                    • I really don't feel much about President Obama as a man.

                      Sure, aside from your view of him as a far-left "Progressive" democrat, who you see as determined to transform this country (AND TEH WURLD!) into a hippie radicalist fascist atheist socialist anarchist islamist communist nightmare. Obviously this means that the only thing you can do as a True American (TM) is to do everything possible to try to prevent him from completing a second term, regardless of the consequences to life liberty or treasure required.

                      Fortunately for you, while under the previous ad

                    • The shame is that a country founded to overthrow the boot of aristocracy has fallen prey to a "permanent political class", and a line of "Progressive" hooey that has turned the country into a vast plantation through debt, bread & circuses (entitlements).
                      Then there is the parade of pseudo-intellectual twerps in the Information Age who, like some vast, demented electronic warfare system, seem bent on crapflooding all dissenting voices into silence.
                      You're the best.

                    • "permanent political class"

                      The Tea Party is funded by a different economic class that wants to become the new "permanent political class". Perhaps you feel that the top economic echelons will somehow do better, but make no mistake they do not want to include the input from anyone lower than their own position on the economic ladder. Considering part of their platform includes rolling back some of the federal elections that this country has granted over the past 200 years, your leaders are likely to bring about a swift lock-out mec

                    • POTUS isn't alone in that. You'd need to remove the whole federal government, and a good chunk of the financial community. POTUS is just a figurehead. Shoot him down, another will take his place.

                    • You'd need to remove the whole federal government...

                      Local governments are no less corrupt. And bringing that corruption closer to home won't help. All you will get is eternal warfare amongst all the little fiefdoms, just like old time Europe.

                    • Bring the corruption closer to home- and affecting fewer people- means that when the rebellion comes, there are fewer people to remove.

                    • By their "logic", all that the republicans need to take over the federal government is to flip the white house. They have convinced their constituents furthermore that the senate should not be elected directly, so they could just as easily use that as justification to throw out anyone from there that they don't like. They may claim that they dislike

                      the whole federal government

                      But make no mistake, they have winners and losers in mind.

                      The real troubling part though is that we currently have - by actual presidential actions and dec

                    • Bah.. What 'rebellion'? Thousands of years of rebellion and still nothing has changed. The new authorities are invariably as corrupt as the old, and the local authorities next door will be on the attack. The only thing you will be removing are a bunch of cadavers.

                    • The Democrats and the GOP both look a lot alike to me,
                      I'll give you all Bacardi, if you join the All Night Party -- Jimmy Pheromone for President, running against Bush I and Clinton way back in 1992.

                      Without a new constitutional congress, it will just be meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

                    • And yet every once in a while, you get a Good King Wenceslaus.

                    • If the Tea Party took full control we would see silence like none we have before. They've already been buying media outlets, they would quickly revise the laws to allow them to purchase or shut down all the rest of them at will.

                      Lord have mercy on you for slandering good Americans.

                    • Local governments are no less corrupt.

                      Well, yes they are. Your local putzes cannot inflate the currency, and beggar the unborn.

                    • If the Tea Party took full control we would see silence like none we have before. They've already been buying media outlets, they would quickly revise the laws to allow them to purchase or shut down all the rest of them at will.

                      Lord have mercy on you for slandering good Americans.

                      Please, please, please. Show me where I committed such an offense. The Tea Party brothers themselves were just raising a holy stink about factual reporting that displayed them unfavorably [mediaite.com]. Couple this to how the conservatives have been buying up TV and print media as quickly as they can get away with and you can see the future that they want to set up for themselves. Soon freedom of the press will be a luxury for the wealthy.

                    • The Democrats and the GOP both look a lot alike to me,

                      Believe it or not I don't disagree with you on that. The democrats have become highly conservative and the GOP is insanely conservative. This country no longer has a middle or a left, only right and further right.

                      Without a new constitutional congress, it will just be meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

                      I actually agree with you on that as well (shocked?). It is time that we re-write the whole thing from the bottom up. I would actually like to see two documents written; a "conservative" and a "liberal" version. Write them both up and then allow the country to break in to (at least) two new

                    • Show me where I committed such an offense.

                      OK

                      they would quickly revise the laws to allow them to purchase or shut down all the rest of them at will

                      I'm really, really bored with your series of slanders of both me and other decent Americans. Cut that out.

                    • restrict education to only those who they feel deserve it

                      That is absolutely not a conservative viewpoint. I can grant you that there is a minority that wants to make abortion completely illegal; I'd settle for just not getting mugged to pay for murders. Also, only the most extreme libertarians would argue for zero (0) taxes. The common thought is that the enumerated powers of the Constitution make sense, and should be funded. Mandating gun ownership, while bandied about, is about as un-conservative as mandating health insurance.
                      In all, you proffer a mostly disto

                    • I showed you evidence of Tea Party leaders trying to silence an existing media outlet. Their work towards buying out the media is well documented. Several laws relating to how many media outlets can be owned by a single group have been revised upwards in the past decade to allow for more consolidation. Your allegation of slander does not reflect reality.

                    • restrict education to only those who they feel deserve it

                      That is absolutely not a conservative viewpoint

                      However it is the result of defunding and deregulating public education. Whether it is a stated goal or just a convenient side effect doesn't matter.

                      I can grant you that there is a minority that wants to make abortion completely illegal; I'd settle for just not getting mugged to pay for murders.

                      We already have laws on the books to prevent federal dollars from paying for abortions, yet you want more to prevent them from happening. I'll give you a hint here; if you want people to believe in your side of the cause you can start by stopping the silly alternate labels, and stopping with made up "statistics" about it. Start arguing honestly about it an

                    • However it is the result of defunding and deregulating public education. Whether it is a stated goal or just a convenient side effect doesn't matter.

                      You might want to consider (a) homeschooling

                      There are two massive problems with that idea, and a large number of only-slightly-less-massive ones as well.

                      First is that homeschooling produces a massive array of different outcomes. Some kids come out well and others less well. This comes in part from the fact that they won't generally achieve any better a K-12 education than what their parents received, and due to the passage of time will often achieve far less as their parents are generally not trained as educators.

                      Second though is that many fam

                    • We need at least 5 countries, based on language and money movement alone.

                      And I don't want to see either a "liberal" or a "conservative" constitution- both sides abuse freedom to do evil. I'd like to see a human constitution- one that includes respect for human life, AND enough noblese oblige to care for the poor.

                    • Maybe if we defunded and deregulated PUBLIC education, PRIVATE education would once again take over?

                      There was a time, not long ago, that between Lutherans, Catholics, and Jews, half the school children in America were in private schools.

                    • There is one humanity, one morality, one culture. All else is corruption.

                      The melting pot and the salad bowl models of plurality have been dismal failures. All they do is create strife.

                    • Maybe if we defunded and deregulated PUBLIC education, PRIVATE education would once again take over?

                      And then what happens for those who cannot afford private education? There are plenty of private education options available presently, and many people simply cannot afford them. Are the less wealthy not entitled to an education?

                      Furthermore, if you deregulate education, then nobody is held responsible if private education does not adequately prepare students for any kind of post-secondary future (whether that be a job, or more school, or something else).

                      There was a time, not long ago, that between Lutherans, Catholics, and Jews, half the school children in America were in private schools.

                      And nothing prevents that from happening right n

                    • We need at least 5 countries, based on language and money movement alone.

                      The number is not critical. Maybe we need more than 2, but it seems time to do away with the notion that we can get by on just one.

                      And I don't want to see either a "liberal" or a "conservative" constitution- both sides abuse freedom to do evil. I'd like to see a human constitution- one that includes respect for human life, AND enough noblese oblige to care for the poor.

                      The problem is that along political and philosophical lines we have different ideas of what it means to do those things. Writing just one constitution is impossible now, at least if you want wording in it that is not so absurdly vague as to be meaningless. We literally cannot even come up with one uniform - and meaningful - definition for "respect for human life" between th

                    • The poor go to Catholic School, where the nuns are once again paid only with room and board.

                      And as for being held responsible, isn't it the STUDENT'S responsibility to be educated?

                      As for what is preventing that from happening right now- the main thing are government intrusions into private schools, like common core.

                    • The five comes from the Where's George trading data, that proves that money moves in five distinct trading regions in the United States, with very little trade between those regions.

                    • And as for being held responsible, isn't it the STUDENT'S responsibility to be educated?

                      I may not have been adequately specific here. I was referring to when the curriculum is inadequate to prepare the students. Allow me to elaborate:

                      • If the student is unprepared because they goof off all day and watch TV all night, the problem is the student (and the student's family)
                      • If the student is unprepared because the school taught them mythology in place of math, science, and history, the problem is the educator and the curriculum

                      If we completely deregulate education so there are no common requir

                    • Wow, smitty. Don't bother giving the person who wrote the comment that the question refers to a chance to respond. Obviously, the lines that the mainstream media sells you about the person are all 100% accurate and you should just spout them off as accurate descriptions of them, right? Don't bother listening to them or anything, you are certainly more qualified to describe what they mean than they are!

                      What happened to actual listening and discussion? I guess that was just too much to ask.

                    • First is that homeschooling produces a massive array of different outcomes.

                      You could with equal reason complain that people don't die at the same age.

                      No, you couldn't. You are comparing individual decisions and individual genetics that influence life expectancy to the societal obligations that we have to our children to see that they grow up to best realize their potential. Under a completely deregulated education system the potential of a child is determined only by the resources available to their parents.

                      Second though is that many families literally cannot afford to homeschool their children.

                      ObamaCare

                      If you can't enter this discussion honestly they why are you entering it at all?

                      The real terror for teacher's unions is that kids who are not given sexual indoctrination in grade school might grow up to be sane heterosexuals, marry, and fail to abort the next generation, at a rate that can sustain our society.

                      Is this the "gay agenda" that the conservative ("mainstream") me

                    • And yet I notice you still didn't answer the question- isn't it ultimately the Student's responsibility to learn?

                    • Oh, here's the answer. And yet common core does teach them mythology in place of math, science, and history. It's just the mythology of secularism, designed to turn them into nice little units of consumerism and slave labor and never question their masters.

                      The problem IS the "common" requirements are far too common, and will always leave the students unprepared for the real world, because the real world isn't uniform. The real world is local and individual, not cookie cutter one-size-fits-all.

                    • We're in an eternal war anyway of good vs evil. Might as well admit that it exists, that way people have a reason to fight for good instead of evil.

                    • Good and evil can be seen in Evolution. Good things allow the species to survive, bad things cause extinction.

                      It is not "made up" or invented by man. It exists even for viruses.

                    • The real world is local and individual, not cookie cutter one-size-fits-all.

                      However there are common themes that people need to be knowledgeable on regardless of where they live and what they do. People who cannot handle algebra (at the very least) will find themselves left behind in the modern world. People without a fundamental understanding of the natural world will find the real world to be unmanageably difficult. I don't care if people want to teach mythology to their children, but if we are allowing mythology to be taught in place of science, math, and history, we are doi

                    • About 25% of the population can't handle algebra. It isn't just mythology that causes that- it is natural ability.

                      If you've created a modern world that is too complex to live in, how the hell is that the fault of the 25% of people who can't handle algebra?

                      Now that's the mythology of secularism- that everybody has to be the exact same type of genius that they are, in order to survive.

                      What about the other 25% that want to do calculus?

                      Basically, with the common core, you've just insured that 50% of the kids w

                    • Strength and adaptability come from actually being able to have a next generation- something your group has entirely failed at.

                    • I wouldn't expect you to understand the argument since you don't believe that people should have equal opportunity to realize their own potential. You have shown that children who aren't lucky enough to crawl out of th right vagina should not, in your view, be granted the same opportunities as those who did.

                    • About 25% of the population can't handle algebra. It isn't just mythology that causes that- it is natural ability.

                      First of all, I'm willing to wager that you pulled that number out of thin air at best. Second, it is not necessarily "natural ability" that determines whether or not one can handle algebra. There are plenty of people who give up quickly or are given poor instruction that tends to encourage them not to try. There are also plenty of people who come from math-phobic families who do manage to master algebra (and beyond), even if they need more time than most, because they want to. Giving people the "natur

                    • should have equal opportunity to realize their own potential

                      I have ALWAYS argued for equality of opportunity, and you do harm to my position to say otherwise.

                      That is because the truth is that your argument does not create equality of opportunity. When higher education is not accessible - and accessibility is determined by ability to pay for it rather than ability to learn - then opportunity is not equally accessible. When quality primary and secondary education is only available to those who live on the right side of the tracks, opportunity is not equally accessibly. When health care is rationed on ability to pay and those who can't afford care get to die yo

                    • They weren't around 50 years ago. And they only appear when they can be parasites on somebody else- in cultures rich enough to support people without children and without productivity.

                    • If those are the skills "essential to survival in the modern era" then what we need is reservations for people who aren't cookie cutter brainwashed people who would be better replaced by a computer.

                    • June 28, 1969- 44 years ago, was when the phenomenon of gays trying to take over society appeared, in response to a police raid on a gay bar in New York City.

                      The first pride parade happened very soon after that, in November.

                      Before that, wherever homosexuality existed, it was marginalized. For the very reason of preserving the human species. By 1969, the United States got rich enough to support homosexuality again.

                      It is very much a First World Problem. Countries that are more focused on survival, recogniz

                    • More upset that you're forcing the bedroom into the public arena, instead of leaving it in the bedroom.

                      They *are* pariahs and the scum of society, but who would treat them as such if nobody ever knew?

                    • No other society has *ever* adopted "live and let live" and survived. "Live and let live" is against survival.

                    • My God is mightier than your nothing.

                    • And, of course, yourself.

                    • EXACTLY. Good fences make good neighbors.

                    • When higher education is not accessible

                      I guess it boils down to who maintains "accessible". Powerful bloke.

                      I suspect that you are conveniently ignoring that accessible does not mean it needs to be watered down. Furthermore accessible does not mean that everyone needs to be able to succeed at it. An accessible education only opens the door it does not prevent people from falling on the threshold. All that accessible means is that people who are able to pursue education are able to do it without concern for whether or not they have the finances for it. That accessibility diminishes a little more each year in

                    • The reason isn't obvious?

                      Correct. The reason is not obvious why you brought Benghazi into this discussion, other than your undying hatred of the administration. It remains not obvious, as you did not give a justification for it but rather a run-around for the question.

                      zero facts for it

                      Are you just going to ignore the holocaust that is abortion? I guess that is how holocausts are handled by those peripheral to them.

                      How is it that when I suggest your "solutions" to ethnic diversity resemble a crematorium, you accuse me of playing the Hitler card, yet you get away with calling something a "holocaust"?

                      Let me give you a hint here; a holocaust implies that there is a specific t

                    • Been doing that ever since I switched to following Reinhard Marx instead of Karl Marx :-).

                      But for private property to be truly private, the ideal nation state size becomes the family.

                    • For those states that followed Augustinain Just War rules- it did until the Moslems came.

                    • Yes, their own Jihad is very valid to them.

                      But that's a prime example of why moral relativism and pluralistic society will always fail.

                    • "There is no justification for drawing first blood."

                      Correct, there isn't. In fact, under the original Augustinian Just War theory, not only was first blood to be spilled, but it was to be spilled ON YOUR OWN SOIL IN YOUR OWN COUNTRY before you could go to war.

                      "And most of it is wrong, as anything that would rationalize punitive punishment and preemptive attack would be. "

                      Correct, which is why Augustinian Just War Theory limits an army to their own borders- they can neither invade another country, nor retal

                    • Benghazi, a holocaust, Benghazi, a holocaust, Benghazi, a holocaust. Stevens, Smith, Doherty, Woods. Any other words you want to put on the ban list?

                      What jump of logic did you have to make to conclude that I somehow "ban(ned)" those words? I never said you couldn't say them, I just said they are not connected to this topic. I was merely pointing out that you happily bring up your favorite conspiracy theory on a regular basis regardless of whether it connects it any way to the topic at hand.

                      I'm waiting to see when you jump on the latest anti-Obama conspiracy theory. I'm sure you've heard that Falluja just fell to insurgents in Iraq. Can you fill u

                    • I connected Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods very well to the topic

                      No, you did not. You just dropped their names in more or less randomly. Just because you see Benghazi and being connected to everything in the universe doesn't mean it automatically is connected to every discussion we can ever have.

                      you melt down.

                      I've never in my life met someone before who fully equated pointing out a gaping non sequitur as "melt down". I guess there really is a first time for everything, though.

                      I'm sure you've heard that Falluja just fell to insurgents in Iraq. Can you fill us in on how this was actually set up by President Lawnchair to build traction for his Islamo-fascist New World Order?

                      Well, we need to differentiate between incompetent acts of commission, e.g. our Libya policy in general, Benghazi in particular, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and (wait for it) Somalia,
                      ...in contrast with the general, foppish incoherence of Mr. Global Nobel Climate Peace Drone Prize Hope & Change's policy.

                      What the hell are you trying to say here? Those two statements don't make much sense apart or together.

                    • although you have shown before that you would be OK with skipping that pesky trial phase.

                      Oh, you're back to quaffing that lie, as though it were fine Scotch? Liars lie, and there would always be someone to claim that injustice was done, irrespective of the thoroughness and validity of any impeachment proceeding.

                      That is not a lie, and you cannot make it into one by repeatedly lying about it. Your own comments have clearly shown that you do not see a legitimate trial as a prerequisite for throwing out the POTUS.

                      It is out of fear of God Almighty that I have never, do not, and will never, ever support anything less than a leisurely and thorough exploration of justice in the case of Barack Obama

                      No matter how many trials it may take, or who - inside the law or otherwise - may be called upon to administer this "justice"... As long as you can convince someone that the absence of evidence is evidence of the need for "justice", you're fine, right?

                      we're supposed to avert our gaze

                      I'm curious as to what you think that phrase means.

                    • It seems like every discussion we start always leads to you coming back to how desperately you want to get rid of Obama. Your obsession with Benghazi is even more dramatic - and calling for more profound immediate extralegal reactions - than Rudy Giuliani's obsession with 9/11.

                      From my vantage point, you are torpedoing the discussion when you insist on inserting Benghazi into it every chance you get. That said your lack of facts for Benghazi are on par with your lack of facts for the sweeping majority o
                    • If your goal with inserting Benghazi into this discussion wasn't solely because of your undying obsession with removing Obama at all costs, then please, fill us in and say why you brought it up here.
                    • Allow me to point out that way back here, on Thursday [slashdot.org] you spontaneously played the Benghazi card when we were talking about health care and accessibility of opportunity. You just simply dropped their names because ... well, as best I can tell just because you like to talk about your favorite anti-Obama conspiracy theory.

                      They didn't have a damned thing to do with the discussion before then. You inserted them and then never actually tied them to the discussion, you just simply kept referring to them as if

                    • There are three reasons:

                      Well, at least this time you tried to come up with reasons beyond just your infinite hatred of the current administration and undying passion for finding excuses that you see as justification for discarding the legal system to throw out the POTUS. That said...

                      (1) Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods are a representative sample of how much our Ruling Class really cares about the peasantry,

                      Actually, they made far better-than-average wages, and had far superior health care. You cannot make an argument beyond that for whether or not they were "cared for", at least not based on any actual information.

                      (2) We've got to keep names like Stevens, Smith, Doherty & Woods alive in the face of MiniTru's effort's to airbrush the universe, and,

                      Being as Benghazi still gets regula

                    • Your brush-off of Falujah is noted. You could easily blame it on Obama, this could be just as well justified a cause for throwing him out as all your non-information regarding Benghazi. After all, Obama started that war, too, didn't he?

                      Didn't he? Didn't he send us in to Iraq with no obvious rationale or goals?

                      Oh, wait. That was the guy before him. Who was that again? Let me think... Who came before Obama?

                      Oh, that's right! Bill Clinton! See, you can blame this on Clinton! There was no presid
                    • You are relying on a difference without a distinction. You specifically want desperately to see one of them turn in to the event that brings about an early end to the current administration, while you pretend that the other is somehow less bad.

                      Smitty, if I could get just one honest answer from you, it would be to this question:

                      What will you do in 2017, after Obama leaves office upon completing his term, and you find that all your anger about Benghazi indeed was incapable of leading to the overthrow

                    • But 1 is actually too small to be a viable nation; the welfare fails to work at that stage. The family creates an ideal nation, because there are multiple generations taking care of each other.

                      Single individuals will always be parasites on others.

                    • I'm going to pass on quoting most of what you wrote, as your comment was mostly silly partisan sound-bites or various types of childish insults. I will, however, bring this one bit to light:

                      I prize the peaceful transfer of power that is crucial to our Constitutional order very highly.

                      That is quite counter to the urgency of your calls for Obama to be thrown out over Benghazi (in spite of you having no evidence to support a case for such action against him for it). Or do you feel that you can somehow magically make both Obama and Biden disappear so that you can install a President Boner? I guess th

                    • "President Boner?" wait, had I not been assailed for "various types of childish insults" in your opening paragraph?

                      Boner is the closest word spell check knows to the speaker's last name. It is still far closer to his actual name than any of the long childish insults you constantly feel obliged to sling at the current presidential administration.

                      quite counter to the urgency of your calls for Obama to be thrown out over Benghazi (in spite of you having no evidence to support a case for such action against him for it)

                      There is in fact plenty of evidence for reasonable people who sanely view the facts with open eyes to conclude that grounds for impeachment exist.

                      That is something you take on faith, as you are clearly not of that group of people.

                      You put yourself in the position of defending

                      No. Once again, I am not defending anything. You have provided nothing whatsoever to defend against. You want an impeachment in spite of having no facts at all of anything worthy of even ca

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close