Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Excuse me (Score 1) 79

Your allegations are 100% faith based, and proving them to be false is no easier than proving there to be no deity.

Can you relate your assertion to the timeline, please? The claims of demonstrations, the video, the jailing of Nakula Nakula, all belie everything you're saying. It is simply the case that the public amnesia upon which a fourth-rate banana republic regime like that of Obama relies to retain power is not working in this case. The overwhelming suspicion that good men were callously left to die in combat is going to require a thorough, detailed, non-Duranty-Award-Winning investigation.
Interestingly, the one making faith-based claims here seems to be you: that Obama may be innocent, that the NYT and Senate investigations were more than so many soiled diapers, that the Left can, with some combination of shrill cries and running out the clock, manage to outrun getting "The Stevens". Are you really some kind of Lovecraft reference, trying to hold sanity together while Cthulhu gnaws?

Our justice system is based on the presumption of innocence when charged with a crime. You are advocating for up-ending that for this case.

In what way, precisely? Why do you fear facts? Do you work as a SysAdmin at the IRS, where you think that people are going to buy off that you "lost" two years of email for, what is it now, SEVEN key employees?
It's demonstrably true that the American people are kinda stupid, having re-elect #OccupyResoluteDesk. I guess you are given little choice but to continue having faith in that stupidity.

how could Obama possibly prove that he does not have the Oval Office Time Machine that your conspiracy theory requires him to have in order to pull off the heinous crime that you want us to believe he did on September 11 2012? You could just say that he made his final trip to the day the machine was created and stopped its construction in order to interfere with the investigation, and then further down the rabbit hole we go.

See, here's the crazy part: we want to know the 5 Ws of what led up to the Benghazi disaster, and the actual play-by-play of what our Commander-at-Golf was doing that night, in lieu of his job.
Given that Socialists seem to be kinda gutless, spineless gelatin, the hope is that the facts can be a sufficient monument to our past stupidity that we Never. Elect. Such. A. Tool. AGAIN. We could set about reform, prosperity, and avoid a third world fate for all races, creeds, orientations, &c. We've just got to get Oedipus to lift the curse on Thebes.

you want every trial in this country to be based on the presumption of guilt - the polar opposite of the foundation of our justice system - or is this a special case that only applies when the person on trial has a (D) after their name?

No, that's all you.

It is disconnected because the POTUS did not kill the Americans in Benghazi himself.

Only you are claiming this. Reasonable men know that there are men capable of personal action, and those placing the medals on men capable of personal action. Ever seen Saving Private Ryan? Obama is the guy who stands there, paralyzed, holding the bandoliers of .50cal, while men die.

I guess you'd have to confine yourself to simple, historically factual, dispassionate, balanced, collegial arguments.

That statement has no connection whatsoever to the statement it is supposedly in reply to. A weather report would have been just as meaningful.

You know precisely what I mean, my sweet propaganda monger.

Essentially the entire time Bush was in office the right controlled the media

Wait. What planet were you on, again?

You are too smart to actually believe in that complete contradiction.

I also did not believe anyone was stupid enough to believe a godforsaken word of Obama's. Lesson: never, never underestimate the power of sycophants.

What bothers me is your belief in the apparent ability of repetition to make facts out of thin air.

Why should we make up anything, when we can have a proper trial, put the appropriate people under oath, and get the facts out? Your only achievement in any of this is to underscore the Streisand Effect.
And I would like to announce boredom with this talking past each other. Not sure how much more time I can devote to re-iterating the truth to you.

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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.