Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:what do people expect? (Score 1) 301

They'd be restrained by each other from conduct that was inappropriate as it caused harm to others

Who is suggesting crime be tolerated? Not me. But then, you seem to be thinking that anyone who starts a business is up to no good, by definition.

Nope! "Off you go, then!" is your words.

That's driving someone out, not a suggestion, but a command.

Wow, you are such a fan of totalitarianism that you can't even parse spoken words without assuming that they're said in the context of people having power over you. No wonder you're so anxious to gain power over everyone who makes things and provides services to you. It's because you think that something as simple as an invitation to follow your heart to Venezuela is a "command." Of course you don't really think that, but you're so desperate to sound that way, you're trolling along as if you did.

Thanks, though, for willingly ending your little ad hominem exercise in avoiding the substance of the matter. It must be exhausting to pretend you're so continually offended by people's exercise of liberty, even as you do everything you can to squelch it. Being called "depraved" by someone like you is actually a badge of honor, so thanks for the complement. The last thing I'd ever want would be for someone like you to approve of me.

Comment Re: what do people expect? (Score 1) 301

It's quaint how you're cherry picking, and ignoring what the founders considered to be the very most important piece of the Bill of Rights: the First Amendment. Most people who love censorship do try to pretend that one doesn't exist, so I can see why you're hoping nobody notices it.

Comment Re: Hillary for prison 2016! (Score 1) 261

OK, let's have you provide some actual words that can be responded to. Which crimes are you suggesting that which people committed, so that you can feel better about yourself as your candidate is under criminal investigation? The words you need to provide are names, and statutes. If you once again cannot muster the courage and the intellectual honesty to do that, we'll just take that as confirmation that you have indeed painted yourself into a craven little corner out of which you can't escape by simply mentioning names and laws. But if you do, those will be some actual words to which a response is appropriate.

But we both know that you're too much of a coward to fabricate that sort of stuff, because such things can be fact checked. So you will, of course, again try to pretend that the problem is with the person who is calling your bluff. That's transparent nonsense, so we're back to you naming names and laws. Which of course you can't do, which takes all the fun out of your irrational little foot-stamping session. Why the cowardice, though? Really, what do you have to lose at this point? Are you afraid that someone will think less of you if you fabricate some non-existent laws to cite people breaking, after all of the other nonsense you've said? You really have nowhere to go but deeper in to the silly little hole you've dug, so you might as well go all the way with it and make up some of the laws you're so desperate to hear somebody say that politicians you don't like have broken. So, get on with it: show some backbone. Grow a pair. Pretend you believe your own BS and name names. Looking forward to it.

Comment Re:what do people expect? (Score 1) 301

So if everyone in a town were to start their own business, selling goods and services to each other ... they'd all be, by your standard, needing to be restrained by each other and subservient to each other? In your twisted little world, the only people who should able to control others are the ones who don't actually innovate, create anything, hire anyone, or pay the income taxes. Yup, you really are a hungry little tyrant, anxious for an economy full of slaves creating the things you want. You're the king, right, as long as YOU don't do something evil like start your own business ... that would be much too offensive, even for you. No, you need a Safe Space where you can order other people to make things for you, and be sheltered from reality while those things are paid for by others and delivered to you by bowing, apologizing business owners who will thank you for controlling them. Wow, you're a real piece of work.

Oh, so you can drive people to another country, and pretend to be for freedom and liberty?

No, I recommended Venezuela as a place where you'd obviously be very happy, since the government there thinks just like you do. The only person here who wants to power to force others to do their bidding, of course, is you. That's just why you'd like it there. You can enjoy all of the prosperity and peace that comes from central control over the people who make things for you. As soon as you can actually find something to eat there, and some toilet paper, you'll be great shape! Nice straw man, though, pretending I'm suggesting you be forced to go live with your kindred spirits. No, I'm just wishing you would go. The "being forced to" thing is your specialty.

Comment Re:what do people expect? (Score 1) 301

Or are you suggesting that outright bribery should be legal and I should be free to offer to pay off the cop, judge and legislator?

Which part of McCain-Feingold was preventing previously existing crime of bribery, and which part of striking down that law's unconstitutional banning of speech suddenly allowed bribery to be legal? Be specific.

As for the 1st Amendment, it is ignored in so many circumstances, what is one more?

Or ten more, or a thousand more, right? We might as well ignore the entire premise that the constitution exists primarily to prevent the government from infringing on personal liberty. If there's any infringement in any form, why, shoot, we might as well go all the way with it, right? Are you even listening to yourself?

Comment Re:Hillary for prison 2016! (Score 1) 261

Let's parse your words, shall we?

It's your burden

I have no burden. Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation on multiple fronts. I didn't make that up, you know it's true. It's simply reality. This reality bothers you because you are shilling for her, and it makes your job harder because it's difficult to explain away her obvious lying, and even harder to explain your own support of it. If there is ANY burden, here, it's on the people who praise her for her lying to explain what it is, exactly, that they find so appealing about it.

and I'd give you an open path

An "open path" to do what, exactly? To observe and mention reality? You seem to think that by someone denying reality, you make it go away. And that as long as you maintain the position that I haven't met your criteria for being able to mention reality, that it makes reality subjective, and you can dismiss it. There are doctors who specialize in dealing with people who are that out of touch with reason. You know you're BSing and making a phony stand, because your real problem isn't actual cognitive denial, it's that you've painted yourself into a rhetorical corner and you're angry that someone is pointing out THAT reality, along with the reality of 150 FBI agents working on a criminal investigation that you wish you could characterize as a "witch hunt" in order to distract from the underlying Clinton behavior that brought it about.

all you have to do is name whoever you can identify as your own political associates, and list whatever offenses you want, as long as you support them being prosecuted

Prosecuted for what? What crimes are you talking about? I don't know of any politicians I support that need to be prosecuted under any criminal statutes. This angers you, because the politician you support HAS violated numerous statutes, and is being actively criminally investigated as we speak. So, in a completely disingenuous and childish attempt to distract from that, you're still insisting that I name laws that haven't been broken by people that haven't broken them before you're willing to acknowledge what 150 FBI agents are spending their waking hours doing right now. If it wasn't obvious that you're just faking your way through this phony display of pretending you don't understand the words you're saying, your insistence that someone else describe non-existent crimes before you'll acknowledge real ones would be a cry for help from a shrink. But you know you're making no sense, and are sticking to it because changing your childish, irrational demand would mean admitting that you made a childish, irrational demand in the first place. I'll let you off the hook: we both already know you did, so there's no point continuing to embarrass yourself.

Comment Re:what do people expect? (Score 1) 301

You're a little foggy on the whole part where it's your fellow citizens who do things like start businesses. Never mind, you're just a wannabe totalitarian that wants to demonize your more productive counterparts while still getting them to make stuff for you. You'd probably be a lot happier in the sort paradise that fully embraces your vision. Say, Venezuela. Off you go, then!

Comment Re:what do people expect? (Score 0) 301

No corporation has ever felt shame.

So, every single person who actually makes up the millions of incorporated businesses, foundations, charities, and other chartered entities are someone instantly transformed into emotionless, cruel automatons the moment sit down at their desks? Your complete misunderstanding of what it means to form and run a business indicates just how inexperienced you are. Consider actually sitting down with some of your local business owners, looking them in the face, and explaining to them how inhuman they are. Would be interesting to watch.

You're dancing on the essence of why Citizen's United must be reversed.

What? People who want to reverse Citizens United are, just like you, simply those who hate the First Amendment because it allows people they don't agree with to speak their minds. I know, you simply have the usual lefty totalitarian urges, and you're mad that everyone else doesn't feel the same way. Too bad. That's exactly why we have the First Amendment in the first place. McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional on the face of it.

Comment Re:Just like the DNC an GOP (Score 4, Insightful) 301

She is not being hypocritical, since she has also spoken out about the influence of big money on politics.

And then she gets on the stage with the biggest Big Money candidate there is, and shouts, "I'm with her!"

I'm fine with people donating to campaigns. I'm not fine with blatant hypocrisy.

Comment Re:Hillary for prison 2016! (Score 1) 261

So, you want me to name people that I support politically, and then name crimes that they haven't committed so that they can be falsely prosecuted so you'll feel better about Hillary Clinton being actually criminally investigated right now, for real, by the FBI. Do you grasp how irrational you sound?

Comment Re:Hillary for prison 2016! (Score 1) 261

So you consider my plainly mentioning the ongoing criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton to be contributing to a witch hunt atmosphere that can only be mitigated if I randomly mention politicians I support and randomly choose criminal statutes under which I think they should be investigated even though I have no indication, whatsoever, that they've done anything wrong? We have ample evidence of Clinton's criminal activity, so I talk about it. I have no indication of criminal activity on the part of any politicians I prefer, but you think I'm under some "burden" to fabricate some some you'll feel better? Are you even listening to yourself?

Never mind, of course you know how ridiculous that sounds. But in order to continue this conversation, I think you need to first call for the criminal prosecution of Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. The burden is on you to name the crimes, of course. Why? Because I think you have that burden in order to make your recommendations to me sound less like a witch hunt. Rational, right? No? Right. Of course you know it's nonsense, but your hypocrisy won't let you back down from your phony adoption of self-contradictory premises.

Comment Re:Hillary for prison 2016! (Score 1) 261

Nope, I did. Here it is again

Hilarious! You say, "here it is again," and then promptly once again avoid doing anything. You say there are people who need prosecuting in order to make the ongoing criminal investigation of your candidate legitimate. But you are pretending to be too much of a coward to name the people in question or the laws in question. Why? Because that (cowardice and laziness) is easier to explain away than outright lying. But, that's what you're doing. Why? Because that's exactly what the candidate you're shilling for routinely does, as well. Lie, deflect, pretend that a shrill, condescending display of taking umbrage is anything other than cheap theater ... anything to avoid actually backing up what you say.

So: to summarize. You think that your boss's criminal investigation isn't fair because you're sure other people have done other things. In order to deflect non-critical thinkers from parsing that simple sentiment and recognizing how morally vacuous it is, you insist that other people do some other vague things and if they question your vagueness, you chide them for not communicating. Here's the thing: nobody falls for that crap, except perhaps some of the very fellow supporters your candidate has sown up, no matter how many times she looks them in the eye and demonstrably, blatantly lies. All of your theater is wasted on anyone who can think and thus see that you're just posturing and hoping to run out the clock on a conversation that's actually challenging your crappy propagandizing and juvenile attempt to revise history.

I know, it's annoying when people don't get distracted by your hand-waving vagueness, but I do appreciate the entertainment value of you saying you're once again providing detailed information that, in the text that you then type, doesn't mention a single name or statute. Let's try it again - you can just fill in the blanks:


Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________
Name:___________ Violated Statute:___________

I'm sure you can come up with four, right?

Comment Re:Hillary for prison 2016! (Score 1) 261

Did you think I forgot that I already provided you with an explanation?

You did no such thing. You're sticking with your deliberately vague "You can't approve of a criminal investigation of my favorite candidate's violation of very specific statutes unless you also call for the sweeping prosecution of everyone you like on whatever non-existent violations that I'm implying they've committed but won't enumerate."

Heck, are you just afraid to have a conversation with me so much that you can't even respond to my post without cutting off a good portion of the words?

What's the point? The entire premise underlying all of your cowardly anonymous blathering is completely nonsensical. Until you acknowledge that and say what you really mean, all of the other attempts you make at sound condescending and finger-wagging are just silly. You've doubled down on that by expressly avoiding any specificity, because you know you can't actually provide any. As a result, you're stamping your feet and still attempting to distract from your central error. Your mistake is assuming that nobody would call you on your BS, and point out that your attempt to imply law breaking where it doesn't exist as a distraction from where it DOES exist is just typical pro-Hillary shillary on your part.

Seriously, are you afraid of what would happen if you did start looking?

If I did start looking at what? Which highly scrutinized public figure's conduct under which specific statute are you referring to? There are two choices: you have specific knowledge, that nobody else has, of lawbreaking along the lines of Hillary's but in some other camp ... or, you are perfectly aware that years of public scrutiny, including congressional hearings of all sorts and extensive FOIA disclosures show no such thing, and you're really, really hoping that nobody else remembers that, so you can continue with your disingenuous bit of theater.

Slashdot Top Deals

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos