Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: I've actually got a consistent philosophy 48

Really? What circus or rodeo have you been to where the clown is directing the show, leading every event, collecting tickets, and regulating event safety?
Because that is just one of the glaring contradictions in your philosophy. You are trying to state that the clown - whose job it is to distract the audience from the job at hand - is somehow the one directing all the jobs. Clowns never have power, yet your clown for some reason has all the power?

Here it is, shocking in its brevity:

Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

Just because bad pizza happens doesn't mean we should volunteer to deliver.
My gut feeling is that the country will survive Judas Prez, and all of the awful ideas he represents. Whether we analyze and reject this concentration of power is another question.

This discussion has been archived.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

I've actually got a consistent philosophy

Comments Filter:
  • Even for you, that was an epic feat of not answering the question. You so desperately want to see the POTUS removed by any means necessary that you don't care about the glaring hypocrisy in your statements against him. There are plenty of things wrong with the Obama Administration - I have myself pointed out and opposed many of them (in spite of your claims to the contrary) - but you have hated it since day one to such a degree that you don't care how silly your make yourself look in your propagation of c
    • I mean, your opinion may differ, but could you at least develop an argument to show how you think your stance anything more than 'station identification' at this point?
      • You just danced all around the question. Frankly I think you've spun around so much that you can't even think straight in your own question any more. When you are able to stop for a moment to reread your own question, feel free to rephrase it and I can try to answer it for you.
        • How about: "Put up or shut up"?
          • How about: "Put up or shut up"?

            So then you've opted for the latter for yourself? Dancing around a question the way you did certainly doesn't resemble "put up".

            • I, uh, seem to have offered the JE. . .
              • Are you referring to this JE? This one, that this comment is written in reply to?

                If so then this JE did not come even remotely close to answering the question. It danced around it and then tried to declare that the question was never asked. It really was an awful, pitiful display of yours.
                • So, this JE is at too high a level of abstraction for you, then? Sorry; thought you were packin' the gear.
                  • The only thing abstract here is that you claimed to be addressing the glaring inconsistency of your philosophy regarding the POTUS, by not addressing it at all. You might as well have titled the JE as your solution to the US federal deficit and then discussed the Stanley Cup playoffs.
                    • You say "not at all" and I say I addressed it directly. Too crisp? Too brief? Are you unable to understand something boiled down that simply? Do you need 5k words of jargon []?
                    • I addressed it directly

                      You did no such thing. You wrote a JE title with the lie of your "consistent" philosophy, and then quoted my pointing out your glaring inconsistency. You then promptly switched subject completely and declared victory.

                      In no way whatsoever did you actually address your inconsistency.

                    • Ah, so: you now need to call me a liar, just because you dislike my level of abstraction and my point. If BHO is a conservative, then you're a Bircher, sir.
                    • No, I am not just simply "call[ing] you a liar". I have demonstrated that you did not at all fulfill your JE promise here. Your JE title claims that your philosophy is consistent, in spite of linking to my comment where I demonstrated the glaring inconsistency. You then did not a single thing to refute the proof of your inconsistency.

                      I have actually demonstrated your claim of consistency to be untrue. You have supported that claim with your actions.
                    • Saying you demonstrated something is not actually demonstrating something.
                      This is a valid assertion in much the same spirit that BHO "pivoting to job creation", and having the work force participation rate plummet further, even if the corrupted BLS numbers are four times better than those perceived in reality [].
                      Dude, we are toast. Or are you going to point to some toady eclownomists and try to defend this joke of a "recovery"?
                      Full circle to the point of my JE: just because the Progressives have led us into
                    • Saying you demonstrated something is not actually demonstrating something.

                      Indeed, and you have not demonstrated consistency. You have indeed demonstrated exactly the opposite of consistency when you keep claiming that a "clown" is in charge of the world. No operation with a clown operates in that way. You need to either claim that the POTUS has all the power or none of the power, you cannot claim both.

                      That is your inconsistency, plain and simple. You tried to somehow magically disprove it in this JE by not addressing it.

                      Dude, we are toast. Or are you going to point to some toady eclownomists and try to defend this joke of a "recovery"?

                      Oooh, clever new portmanteau. Only, not really be

  • You just don't like the wrapping. In that you are very consistent. Until you recognize that he is just carrying on the same policies of the past, we can safely say you really have learned nothing, and your whole argument is meaningless. And you still completely fail to understand where the power is. Well, really you're simply denying the truth to protect your own learned condition.

    • You just don't like the wrapping.

      It's the wrong shade. If you look at the imperial actions of Reagan/Meese, you can draw a straight line of continuation to the Obama/Holder administration.

      But Ronnie looked better on a horse, and you just knew he was "our kind of people". But they're both going to go down as a couple of bums.

      • Cherry pick away, and keep in mind what you're defending.
        • I'm defending nothing. I stipulate that Barack Obama is a bum as president. Belongs in the same hall of shame as Ronald Reagan when it comes to putting a stake in our future.

          • Very good. What's your prescription? Jeb, Her Majesty, or a snorting a fat line of Drano?
            • SMOD 2014!

              For you non denizens of Ace of Spades HQ, that stands for "Sweet Meteor Of Death".
            • You just can't stop with that nonsense, can you? Waddya gonna do? Steer the ship into the rocks unless someone offers you directions? Can't you act on your own and follow your own path? Can't you take a step without somebody to tell you where to put your foot? You sound more helpless than a newborn.

              • Can't you act on your own and follow your own path?

                And I do, and you claim it's not. It's almost as though you're just a crapflooder.

                • Well, if pjmedia and all the other followers of big money politics is your path, then by all means, call me what you will. And your Rush Limbaugh (or similar), is he following you, or are you following him? Whose path is it really? Every "argument" you post here, I read three days before from one of your favorite pundits.

    • I don't dispute similarity in kind, but totally disagree on degree.
      Further, we really need to be talking about post-partisan, systemic alterations in the feedback loop.
      Although it may be too late, and we're all shagged.
      • All we are seeing is a maturation of policy you've been pimping all this time. Nothing has changed, except maybe the rate of decline. The direction has not changed one single degree. The policy is working the only way it can, and it still doesn't matter which actor you put in front of the camera. So, again, it leads to the only logical conclusion after all the fluff have been tossed out, with you it's the person. You have yet to contradict that in any way despite all your denials. You remain blissfully unaw

        • I thought we'd already been down this it's-all-rigged route in the discussion. If what you say is true, then Hillary is correct, and none of this makes any difference. But your behavior belies your stated theory.
          • It is rigged only to extent that you "play along". 98% of you like kool-aid, and damn anyone who tells you it's poison. And right, as long as you do play along, it doesn't make any difference which puppet you choose. And you also choose to misread what I post. I can only assume that you're not interested in discussing a solution that exists outside your pinhole view of things, especially one that might result in loss of privilege.

        • with you it's the person

          With smitty the person is irrelevant. With smitty it is about the letter after the person's name. Smitty loves the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 when it is proposed by someone with an (R) after their name - he has demonstrated that a great many times when trying to sell "alternatives" to it. He loved GWB to pieces but yet hates Obama for doing all the same things (and even hiring many of the same cabinet members and advisers) as GWB.

          It doesn't matter what suit is in front of the camer

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read.