Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
User Journal

Journal Journal: Interesting 12

Jay Carney: I Never Told A Lie
I am seriously interested, as an intellectual matter, just what the man's definition of 'lie' is.
There are national security matters that are off the table--got it.
Then there is carrying out orders--understood.
I guess the only way I can buy Carney's line is if the scope of the statement pertains solely to any matters of personal opinion into which he ventured while on

Comment Re:Excuse me (Score 1) 79

So then how do you determine that state? How many trials would you go through to establish innocence?

How would the absolute nature of innocence be affected in any way by a trial, if one were innocent?

I have not yet seen any evidence to support a notion of him being guilty of any of your favorite conspiracy theories.

Which is not the same thing as saying you know the President to be innocent.

How can you possibly call an investigation unreliable when you haven't bothered to read the results?

One obvious way is to note that, were any of the previous whitewashings, in fact, adequate, there would not be further investigations.

Again, why must innocence suddenly be proven? Such a criteria has never been part of our justice system before.

Our political system has never seen the likes of the IRS suppression of dissent, and the Benghazi suppression of truth that have, unfortunately, clouded the outcome of the 2012 election. Precedent must be set, sir.

providing justice for the slain.

That is a completely disconnected idea.

How shall I judge them disconnected? All I have is the river of prevarication that you represent, and I have to tell you that your every weasel word does nothing to support your cause.

try to claim that the race card is played dogmatically, and you try to group everyone who is not as conservative as you as a "democrat", it is hard to see how you are not trying to force that label on me. If you aren't trying to come up with a way to justify your 100% fact-free belief in my desire to use that label, then why do you bring it up so often

I guess you'd have to confine yourself to simple, historically factual, dispassionate, balanced, collegial arguments. The Left spent the last decade carpet bombing Bush in particular, and conservatives in general, so badly with rhetoric. You won. You got the rodeo clown into office and re-elected. And now your rhetorical chickens are coming home to roost. It should indeed bother you that the Left's (politicians and media) countless false accusations of are called out and attacked. This IS racism, and it's done to divide Americans and amass power. Be honest about it; let's purge the country of falsehood, and build a meritocracy.

Comment Accept no shame! (Score 0) 118

It's like Newton's Third Law with me. Anytime some yahoo tells me I should be ashamed, they've lost me.
Build an argument with logic, and I'll tell you if I think it's a shame or not.
But if you're dumb enough of a sheep to accept a pronouncement of shame from someone else, you may deserve your feelings.

Comment Re:Excuse me (Score 1) 79

I don't know. Maybe. . . .BE innocent?

Your writings support the notion that there is no situation in which you would be willing to accept him being innocent. The fact that you refuse to describe how he could be proven innocent

Help me understand how a man who is actually innocent could ever be guilty. Sure, there will always be liars who hurl accusations (see, for example, statements on this website by people you know) but innocence is an absolute state. It's almost as though you kind of suspect the President may be guilty, and you're more interested in gaming the system, as with unreliable investigations, than you are in proving innocence and providing justice for the slain.

You have made a great number of attempts over the years to get me to call you that. I have not once done so.

I have not once done so. Let me double down. I have never once sought to manipulate your speech. In fact, I have never attempted to coerce directly anyone to say anything. Which is not the same as saying I've never encouraged honesty, nor attempted to get you to speak truthfully, nor failed to admit where I (in this JE thread, for example) have veered into inaccuracy. Integrity, dude: it's what's for breakfast. Not force feeding you, but do eat up. Please.

So if protection against double jeopardy no longer matters, what else no longer matters to you in "rebuilding" the justice system? Do protections against cruel and unusual punishment go out the window as well? How about 5th amendment protections? Miranda rights? Right to a trial by jury?

Are you in creative writing mode again? I assure you: I'm not (though it sounds as though you may be) talking about the Full Clinton.

Comment Re:Excuse me (Score 1) 79

You have already shown you don't care about independent investigations anyways.

I'm not sure anything resembling an "independent" investigation has occurred for any of the myriad of scandals in the last five years.

I can't imagine a situation where you would ever accept the possibility of him being "innocent"

I don't know. Maybe. . . .BE innocent?

THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright?

You keep trying to get me to call you a racist.

The ski jump logic got wild there. I am pretty sure I'm NOT the GOP, and this is a hypothetical future case where somebody else would be disagreeing with Obama (the definition of racism, to some). How, exactly, that amounts to YOU calling anyone racist is unclear. Though, admittedly, in keeping with your style.

unless of course you mean you are past caring about the protections of this country's justice system.

The justice system, too will require rebuilding if there is to be any traditional sense of justice regained. Like traditional marriage, justice has been taking major hits for many decades. Lord have mercy.

Comment Re:Excuse me (Score 1) 79

You either do want to see impeachment happen, or you do not.

I would love to see some justice, but I'm not sure it's attainable. Were Obama innocent, he should welcome an exoneration. THEN the GOP could be both raaaaacist and wrong, amIright? The simple truth is that I care as much about an impeachment proceeding as I do the question of the lat/long of his mother at his birth--What. Difference. Does/Would. It. Make?
Does it offend you if I'm kind of past caring?

Comment Re:Excuse me (Score 1) 79

Are you, at this time - and for the duration of the Obama administration - against starting impeachment?

I should think Obama's record the best answer for this question. Do you think there is evidence that he has deviated from his oath of office?
For my part, I'm emotionally past the question. If you yourself think that BHO was born in Kenya, then maybe you should demand his ouster. I'm not wasting my breath.

he intends to start an impeachment tomorrow, would you be opposed, or in favor of that?

For which of Obama's alleged indiscretions would you recommend this procedure? Or, could a composite series of charges be proffered? I really can't be too specific until you tell me what charge(s) you think worthy.

Up until today every comment I have seen from you that has regarded impeachment in any way has indicated your enthusiastic support of it.

I suppose I was enthusiastic until the 2012 election. However, think of that election as a quasi-referendum on the topic; the fact that Obama won re-election* pretty well indicates that not enough Americans felt strongly enough to deliver his ouster. Now I'm ambivalent.
Conversely, the jacked up pile of frack since 2012 that is Obama's third two year period does not bode well for anyone not named Soros. The question moves to whether Obama can deliver as much damage to Her Majesty in the last two years as he did in 2008. If there really IS to be an impeachment, wouldn't it be funnier if the people calling for it were Harry and Nancy, in the hopes of restoring some shred of credibility to the party of Sandra Fluke?

Comment Re:Excuse me (Score 1) 79

I see you bring up another conspiracy theory that you want congress to spend billions of dollars investigating at least every week. If you aren't doing it for impeachment, then what are you doing it for?

Um, truth?

Please, if you can, show me an example of where you have been "actively against" impeachment.

I'm really more "pro reform". To your point, I've never explicitly said I am "actively against" impeachment. I figure, after this November's GOP wave, there is going to be some sort of circus, which the Democrats will try to turn away from the truth and into some manufactured raaaaacism screed. They need such a move to regain the tempo in advance of Her Majesty's coronation in 2016.
None of which is meant to proclaim Obama's innocence of anything.

Comment Re:Excuse me (Score 1) 79

Conservatives wanted lower income taxes for the wealthy, and Obama signed off on bigger tax cuts than any that Reagan ever dared propose.

Maybe we can agree, irrespective of the IRS scandal, that the existing tax system is a wash, and we need something shorter & clearer. The irony is that we have crusaders like Her Majesty wailing about the need to tax the rich, while pumping the loopholes like mad. But that's the sort of prevarication one expects from our neo-aristocracy.

Conservatives resisted health care reform, so Obama signed off on a giant corporate give-away to the lobby that owns more senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle than any others.

I mean, your Orwellian claptrap is ruin. What sane person wants your ruin?

Conservatives resisted closing Guantanamo, so it hasn't happened.

I'm sorry, have elections had consequences?

Conservatives resisted ending the war in Afghanistan, so we are still there.

Hey, didn't the no-talent rodeo clown campaign on the 'Stan as the correct war?

Conservatives resisted doing anything to make college more accessible to lower-income Americans, so we have the same broken system.

The only thing that can improve college access is getting the federal government out of education, which was and remains a 10th Amendment violation.

Conservatives wanted to see the PATRIOT act continued on, so we see it continue on.

Was it a party-line vote like the Affordable Care Act, please?

How many more examples would you like?

It was silly of me to expect other than crap from you.

I'm curious which 'conservatives' you mean

Conservative, in the sense of any elected official in the federal government who has an (R) after their name, or anyone who supports them enthusiastically.

So you say 'Conservative' where I would say 'Progressive'. Fine.

. . .determined to dedicate unfathomable volumes of time and treasure towards bringing the current administration to an early end. If the government were indeed guaranteed to fail regardless then why bother trying to bring down the current guy to install your favorite in his place?

I don't think reform-minded Americans have spent even a fraction of the boodle

Thankfully, lip-service is relatively cheap. Yeah, conservatives haven't spent much so far on impeaching Obama, but that is because they haven't started any procedures yet. The tab will skyrocket if they actually do.
More so, anyone who is genuinely "reform-minded" should focus on more effective ways to deal with the situation. Wasting billions on impeachment when we are this close to the end - arguably much closer to the natural end of the term than to any conceivable end for an impeachment trial - would not be a useful act of reform.

I kind of agree with you, from the standpoint that BHO is pure concrete galoshes for the Democrats. The more of their crypto-Marxist twaddle he blows up and takes with him, the better.

senselessly blown on General Motors

I understand that you see job preservation as terrible because you hate working class Americans. However, the federal government has actually been paid back by GM - and ahead of schedule at that. I don't recall the war in Iraq ever paying us back in the ways that the administration who started it promised it would.

Look at your cheap deflections! GM is about crappy domestic policy, not crappy foreign policy. And I'm all for the workers, and dead-set against the UAW.

the Stimulus

I'm not sure what you have against people who work.

What I have is a useless President. Every time that clown 'pivots to jobs' another fistful get whacked. Stand by for him to stand up and request another Keynesian coke-hit to keep him buzzed until Her Majesty arrives.


... and, back to your war against reading we go, apparently.

Should I read that liar, Dana Milbank?

the reformers should spend more time winning elections

Then go out and help on a campaign. Stop advocating for senselessly wasting money on an impeachment that won't change anything.

Now who's the illiterate one? I've been arguing the unlikelihood of impeachment for a long time, and actively against it for the last few weeks. See above in this reply.

in addition to the rear-guard action of halting the rodeo clown's depravities

You just negated everything you said by going back to the "rodeo clown" bullshit. Stick to one side of the story, please.

Rodeo clown, rodeo clown, rodeo clown. Apparently the high percentage of validity contained in that description bothers you. Rodeo clown.

Slashdot Top Deals

My mother is a fish. - William Faulkner