Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:At first glance, I liked the first response... (Score 1) 24

Gruber was mostly right, although the word "stupid" is probably not what he meant. But the fact is that whoever believed it wasn't a tax, it wouldn't raise rates, it wouldn't force you to change plans and possibly doctors, etc., was ignorant. Not stupid, necessarily, but ignorant. That said, someone who is ignorant and thinks that he actually knows these things is kinda stupid. So all the news folks, for example, who said that what Republicans said about the ACA were lies ... they were stupid.

The fact is that almost everything the GOP said about the ACA was true. Federal funding of abortions, subsidies for illegals, massive government control defined at a later date by an administrator and not Congress, death panels, increased taxes and premiums, decreased choice ... all of it was and is true.

Comment Weird article (Score 1) 14

I'd expect an article talking about criminally prosecuting Gruber would at least make reference to some violation of the criminal code. I see no crime. Neither the author nor his interviewee mention any crime. He makes vague references to "Deceit. Fraud. Premeditated felonious theft.," but he simply gave his opinions; he didn't implement anything. The theft was by the government, not him. The fraud was perhaps aided by him, but no court has ever found that government fraud of this type is prosecutable, so prosecuting a private citizen for aiding the government in something that can't be prosecuted makes no sense.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

In a capitalist society, all services that government does today would be provided by private companies instead.

No, that is an anarchist society: no cops, no courts, no laws. If you have any of those, you have government employees. If you don't have government employees, you have none of those. Capitalism does not imply anarchy.

I won't even read the rest of your comment; an anonymous coward getting this fundamentally obvious thing so clearly wrong doesn't deserve more of a response.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

Based on the 138 convictions, more than any other to date...

I see. You think the number of prosecutions of the executive branch, BY the executive branch, is a reasonable measurement between administrations of which is more corrupt.

That's so cute. And it's so stupid that it physically hurts.

The rest of your comment was nothing more than lies and ad hominems. Literally, there was nothing else in that comment that didn't fall into that category. Especially your claim that speaking to my assumed "culture, ancestry, location of birth" in your argument is not an ad hominem. That's fucking textbook ad hominem.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

Yes, well, your examples suck. They are just like the rest.

Since you didn't say how the examples "suck," the examples therefore still stand, and therefore your assertion that they are "just like the rest" -- which ignores the examples of how they are not -- is baseless, and ignored.

And unions and democrats, and communists and fascists are not anti-capitalists by any means.

Much moreso than Republicans, as the examples -- which remain undisputed -- demonstrate.

... by the grace of your culture, ancestry, location of birth you enjoy many advantages

Ad hominem.

It doesn't fit inside your narrative

Non sequitur.

You said that your preferred faction, the republicans, are better than the democrats in the corruption department, and I am telling you outright that you are full of shit

What's that got to do with whether "people who 'donate' to political campaigns ... expect a return on their investments?"

And you did tell me that I am "full of shit" ... but you've not backed it up. Still waiting.

And we can take a good look at your idol Reagan, just for starters as a tiny sample. On official record as the most corrupt administration ever

a. He is not my idol
b. You're lying that Regan's is "[o]n official record as the most corrupt administration ever"

Didn't you used to better at this? Maybe I am misremembering.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

You really think that people who "donate" to political campaigns don't expect a return on their investments?

I didn't mention donating to campaigns, unless you're referring to collective bargaining leading to politicians giving handouts to employees in exchange for donations and votes ... which is obviously true, which is one of many reasons I say Democrats are more anti-capitalist.

But I don't think you're talking about that, so I don't have any idea what you think I said here, but it seems to me that I didn't say it.

Scott Walker is taking money just like all the others

Yes, he accepts donations, like all politicians do.

... and lot of it from a somewhat famous Las Vegas casino owner. What's up with that?

What's wrong with that? This isn't an argument, it's just an attempt to imply something negative, without actually saying anything that is actually negative.

So funny that you think one group of gluttons is different from another.

I gave specific examples. Do you have any counterexamples? If not, then you're not actually making an argument here, either.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).

You have fallen for the Republican trick.

False.

Under capitalism, there would not be any minimum wage, and government employees wouldn't even exist because there would be no such thing as public property or public services that require public employees.

You're correct on the first point, and incorrect on the second point. There would be far fewer government employees, but no, they would still exist.

But I didn't say these are the correct capitalist positions. I said they are "much more pro-capitalist" than the Democrats. Clearly, if there should be no minimum wage under capitalism -- which I agree is clearly true -- then being against its increase is more pro-capitalist than being in favor of its increase. Further, the one person I mentioned -- Scott Walker -- said just recently that he thinks the minimum wage serves no purpose.

Comment Re:Not surprising (Score 1) 21

The GOP isn't any more pro capitalist than the Dems. They just like a different set of cronies.

Yes, the GOP -- as a whole -- does pay off its cronies. But there are a significant number of prominent Republicans in office who oppose these practices (e.g., Scott Walker). There is not a significant number of Dems who oppose these practices. Further, the Republicans' policies are generally much more pro-capitalist (against raising the minimum wage, against collective bargaining with govt employees, and so on).

So ... no, the GOP is significantly more pro-capitalist than the Dems. Very clearly and easily. They are not, however, as pro-capitalist as I am, or Scott Walker is, etc.

Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

So, here's how this goes: nothing in your next comments matters until you back up or retract your claim that I have ever said impeachment of President Obama needs to happen, or in any way supported impeachment of President Obama. Anything else you say will be ignored until that happens. You need to learn to tell the truth, at least sometimes.

Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

If we don't need an investigation

The Constitution says we don't. Stop being stupid.

Your original statement ... indicated ... that you are certain of the outcome of the coming election

You're a liar.

... and that once your fantasy comes true that the rest of congress would bend to your will before the new class even shows up.

You're a liar. I implied no such thing. You appear to be under the impression that a. the House is not currently Republican, or b. that if the incoming House wants to impeach, the outgoing House would not, or c. the Senate has anything to do with impeachment before the House actually votes for impeachment. a. and c. are obviously false, and b. is nonsense. Stop being stupid.

So now, you admit to lying about proving it.

You're a liar. I said no such thing. I simply proved you were wrong. And you still won't admit you were wrong. In fact, you repeated your lie, even after I proved it was a lie, that removal is a separate process and takes a long time.

Except for all the times when you said [impeachment] needs to happen

You're a liar. It's never happened.

So, here's how this goes: nothing in your next comments matters until you back up or retract your claim that I have ever said impeachment of President Obama needs to happen, or in any way supported impeachment of President Obama. Anything else you say will be ignored until that happens. You need to learn to tell the truth, at least sometimes.

Comment Re:Rule of law (Score 1) 58

You claimed it, you most certainly did not prove it.

Simply put: the Constitution doesn't require an investigation, therefore it isn't necessary. This is easy, even for you, to understand.

First of all, you are claiming to know the results of the upcoming elections

You're a liar, or you can't read. (I could go either way on that one.)

why would the house and senate just spontaneously decide to bend over?

I never implied they would. What are you blabbering about? (Note: this is a rhetorical question. I don't really care what you are blabbering about, because I am quite sure it won't make any sense, won't reflect reality, won't be honest, etc. As usual.)

You are operating in a land of pure fantasy and imagination when you pretend that somehow congress could get this done quickly.

You're a liar. I presented evidence: evidence that Clinton was impeached and tried in 5 months, evidence that removal can happen as part of the trial process and take no additional time, evidence that the Constitution requires no lengthy time period, evidence that no investigation is required, and so on. And make no mistake: all of this evidence is incontrovertible.

You have provided zero evidence. You simply asserted it would take two years or more, literally without any evidence at all.

you did not admit you were wrong about removal taking much more time and being a separate process, when I proved it doesn't and isn't

You claimed it but you did not prove it.

You're a liar. I gave you the example of the former judge, Alcee Hastings (D-FL), whose removal was not a separate process and took no additional time. That is proof. I didn't prove it wouldn't be a separate process and wouldn't take much more time, only that you were obviously wrong to say it necessarily would. And it makes sense that you were wrong, because you are completely ignorant.

Except for the times when you very plainly supported [impeachment].

You're a liar. I have never once supported impeachment of President Obama. You're simply making shit up, as usual.

I ... are [sic] really enjoying how you just discarded the demonstration of your list of claims as being pure fantasy by trying to pick apart just one of them to try to make yourself feel better.

You're a liar. That never happened.

Let's see. You don't admit you were wrong about removal being a separate process and taking a long time, despite incontrovertible proof being presented. You don't admit you were wrong about Obama refusing to enforce the employer mandate, despite it being truly uncontested. You don't admit you were wrong about me supporting impeachment of President Obama, despite the fact that you have no, and have never seen any, evidence I ever did.

And let's not forget that bizarrely stupid claim you made about a grand jury being required! That was a bona fide howler.

You just can't stop making shit up. It's pretty funny.

Slashdot Top Deals

Memory fault -- core...uh...um...core... Oh dammit, I forget!

Working...