Journal damn_registrars's Journal: Even Democrats in the Senate are Incompetent 24
Senate Democrats voted on a letter asking for the Washington Redskins to change their name. This is, of course, a total waste of time as the team can do whatever they want and the Senate doesn't have any way to change that.
Is this a total waste of time? Of course. Is it a bigger waste of time than launching yet another investigation into Benghazi? Not even remotely. It also costs nowhere near as much money as what republicans have already spent drumming up support for their silly witch hunt.
Hence, if the Senate Democrats want to learn how to waste American time and money on the pursuit of meaningless political points, they need to look across the hall.
Is this a total waste of time? Of course. Is it a bigger waste of time than launching yet another investigation into Benghazi? Not even remotely. It also costs nowhere near as much money as what republicans have already spent drumming up support for their silly witch hunt.
Hence, if the Senate Democrats want to learn how to waste American time and money on the pursuit of meaningless political points, they need to look across the hall.
What it's really saying (Score:1)
As with soiling the definitions and calling Obama 'conservative', this just means that the losers are losing the argument.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Hey, let's not talk about the economy/ObamaCare/IRS targeting/Fast & Furious/Benghazi/etc"
I recall, amongst other things, Republicans of not-very-long ago dedicating an absurd amount of time to trying to name everything they could think of after Saint Ronnie when news of his passing came up. It's a good thing there weren't any soldiers dying in combat at that time ... oh, wait, we were engaged in two of the longest and costliest wars of our nation's history.
And that is only one example of egregious time wasting by the GOP.
As with soiling the definitions and calling Obama 'conservative'
Can you show me one bill that Obama has signed into law that would
Re: (Score:1)
Can you show me one bill that Obama has signed into law that would not have been signed by Reagan?
You show me one Reagan would have signed.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Can you show me one bill that Obama has signed into law that would not have been signed by Reagan?
You show me one Reagan would have signed.
The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 was pro-big-business, through and through. Reagan was pro-big-business, through and through; and would have enthusiastically signed it. Obama also signed a significant number of tax cuts for the top economic echelons, which Reagan would have also enthusiastically embraced. And that is only getting started.
Re: (Score:1)
(b) You're talking about the guy who FIRED the air traffic controllers.
Suggestion: aim for credibility, unlike that Picketty twerp.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
(a) You're counter-factual, and
In what sense? That statement doesn't become true just by existing. I laid out an argument, and you discarded it out-of-hand and gave a three-line snippet of snarkiness instead of a meaningful reply.
(b) You're talking about the guy who FIRED the air traffic controllers.
What is your point? He fired them because he didn't want people to have the ability to strike. He then replaced them with people who were more profitable employees at the same positions.
Suggestion: aim for credibility, unlike that Picketty twerp.
Suggestion: read the comments you are replying to in their entirety, unlike your current MO where you grab a few words s
Re: (Score:1)
The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 was pro-big-business, through and through. Reagan was pro-big-business, through and through; and would have enthusiastically signed it.
It didn't happen. 12k+ pages of legislation/regulation ARE. NOT. PRO. BUSINESS. Only in a degenerate, cluttered universe where regulation==industry could a mind be so jacked up as to connect the dots that way. Hard to tell if you're being silly, or if your mind is indeed this warped. Get help.
What is your point? He fired them because he didn't want people to have the ability to strike. He then replaced them with people who were more profitable employees at the same positions.
Profitable in what way, exactly? This is the FAA, you jackwagon: There. Is. No. Profit. Motive.
Despite fustakrakich's claims, I'm not exactly a Ronnie worshipper. But I do know that, just as Ronn
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 was pro-big-business, through and through. Reagan was pro-big-business, through and through; and would have enthusiastically signed it.
It didn't happen. 12k+ pages of legislation/regulation ARE. NOT. PRO. BUSINESS.
Are you joking? HIIBA 2010 make obligate consumers of disgustingly profitable companies out of the overwhelming majority of our country. Other industries are jealous, to say the least, over this sweetheart deal. Even the oil cartel doesn't get this kind of hand out from the federal government.
Profitable in what way, exactly? This is the FAA, you jackwagon: There. Is. No. Profit. Motive.
When you get rid of employees, and replace them with ones who you can pay less to for the same job - without having to provide any other justification for their abrupt termination - your profit motive is apparent.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you joking?
No. I. Am. Not. Joking.
Regulation is like the brakes on your car. If you think standing on the brakes is pro-motion, well, you might be a Democrat.
Over-regulation is making the economy implode. If one were prone to conspiracy theories, one might say that this is #OccupyResoluteDesk's chief mission.
Profit is the difference between revenue and expenses; if you reduce your expenses you increase your profit.
And if over-regulation forces such hires as you DO make to be government-facing compliance monkeys, you know you're living in a post-capitalist society.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Are you joking?
No. I. Am. Not. Joking.
Well, if you say so. We were discussing HIIBA 2010, which makes citizens into obligate consumers of for-profit products. You certainly haven't given anything resembling an argument for why this was not birthed from the conservative movement, and at the same time you gave a solid argument for how indeed it was exactly that.
Regulation is like the brakes on your car. If you think standing on the brakes is pro-motion, well, you might be a Democrat.
That is non sequitur at the very least. HIIBA 2010 does not place new regulations on businesses anywhere near as much as it places regulations on individuals. You have shown before t
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As you previously claimed that it is my obligation to remind you of the actual topic at hand when you derail it with nonsense, I will remind you that we were previously discussing the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 - which you personally showed carries the exact same mandate that the Heritage Foundation had been asking for.
You also tried to pretend that somehow Reagan would not have been willing
Re: (Score:1)
"the exact same mandate"
This is another fine gag. There is nothing stable about the ACA whatsoever; it's a con executed with an eye toward scamming enough idiot voters into putting the Commie noose about their necks. This is, of course, a vague Lenin reference, not a literal conspiracy theory pertaining to hemp.
Re: (Score:2)
"the exact same mandate"
This is another fine gag. There is nothing stable about the ACA whatsoever
No, there is no gag. You provided the link to the mandate that the heritage foundation wanted. It is the same mandate that is in the ACA; the supreme court affirmed it as such as well. Why you would claim that the bill is somehow not "stable" is interesting. I will ask you why you reached such a conclusion, but I don't expect you to give any such reason.
it's a con executed with an eye toward scamming enough idiot voters into putting the Commie noose about their necks
Even for you, that is a bizarre conclusion. Granted, you have repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of anything resembling an understanding of what
Re: (Score:1)
Why you would claim that the bill is somehow not "stable" is interesting. I will ask you why you reached such a conclusion, but I don't expect you to give any such reason.
Ahem [galen.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Your desperation in trying to link Heritage to the ACA
I am not familiar with this strange new meaning of "desperation" you are using here. I used the text of the page that you linked to. The page whose text I directly quoted was written by someone who works for the Heritage Foundation, and was hosted on their webserver.
Perhaps much as you have no clue whatsoever to the meaning of the words "communism", "socialism", and "progressive" - to name only a few - you are also not familiar with "desperation". It does not seem like it would be useful to give you
Re: (Score:1)
I abused the text of the page that you linked to.
FTFY. You have not dealt honestly with it, in context, and parade your little cherry-pickings about as a toddler might a dirty diaper.
Look, we can slice the definitions of political science terms down to razor thin, but the whole matter boils down to a discussion of where on the spectrum from individual to group you fall. If you're "conservative" in the contemporary sense, you're about private property, capitalism, rule of law, and individual liberty. If you're "liberal"/"communist"/"socialist"/"progressiv
Re: (Score:2)
You have not dealt honestly with it, in context,
You're being ridiculous. I took their words directly from their page. I took full sentences when full sentences were dealing with single subjects.
I'm really quite surprised that you couldn't be bothered to read the heritage foundation page that you linked to. You have shown repeatedly that you have no interest in reading text from non-conservative sources, but I've never heard you accuse heritage of being non-conservative. I have noticed that you have not yourself given a single quote from the same
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, we have the clearest possible evidence of your dishonesty in your deliberate misquote
What exactly do you think you're talking about at this point? The reply you just wrote did not quote you in any way and was merely a response to your silly request for a "vote", as if a popularity contest on slashdot would somehow reflect upon who is making a more sound argument.
Is this your way of trying to irritate me into not wasting any further time on you?
If facts irritate you then there really isn't much reason for us to have a discussion.
Re: (Score:1)
What exactly do you think you're talking about at this point?
Your ridiculous JE [slashdot.org] where you deliberately misrepresented what I wrote. Upon further reflection, I see that you didn't put actual quotation marks on it, but "courtesy of" without any hint of paraphrase, sure makes it look like you want the reader to think I said that.
This is disingenuous of you, as the third-party comments on the JE agree.
Re: (Score:2)