Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 72

You want to put words in my mouth

Nope, I don't. You specifically stated that your complaints were directed at your political adversaries who are "thinking" about the popular vote, "petitioning" to influence the electoral college, and "protest-marching" against the results. You associated me with those folks when you followed that statement immediately with "so boohoo yourself." Do you want to pretend it was a generic closing statement with no direct line to the previous statement? That's fine, but even in this most recent comment, you've made a sarcastic quip to suggest that I'm aligned with these loons in response to me explicitly stating my position. No direct argument from you, though....just a bunch of rambling BS about Obama. What a surprise... I guess we know where you stand.

and you're being civil?

Can you read? I've already told you when and why civility went out the window. I'm more concerned with helping you understand the flaws in your position, at this point. You're welcome.

It is interesting that all of these issues weren't issues when Obama won, but they are now because Trump won. That does lead to interesting conclusions.

That's not interesting. It's not even intelligible. What deluded thread of logic is does this wild tangent of an idea even represent? Actually, I take it back about the delusion. Even though you've already demonstrated your meddle, I'll give you an opportunity to explain yourself in clear language. Good luck. I'm waiting.

Saying that we need to follow the rules as they exist is not a "political bent"

First, you've demonstrated your political bent in oh so many ways that I won't bother to list them out here. You and everyone who reads your comments know exactly how you're aligned and how belligerent you are towards anyone who doesn't sing the same tune. Let's not pretend.

Second, I've already explained how the rules defined by our nation's constitution encourage faithless electors. No one is changing rules by "challenging" the constitutionality of state laws. It boggles my mind that you can't grasp this. Are you familiar with cognitive dissonance?

They are both means to changing the results of an election after it is over, done by people who just don't want to accept the result. If the laws were unconstitutional two weeks ago, they were unconstitutional four years ago, and yet the people who are in court now weren't in court four years ago. They are in court today ONLY because their candidate lost and they think they can get the results changed. THERE is the political bent you accuse me of.

Haha, ok, I take back the bit about cognitive dissonance. Good job... It really looks like you're starting to grasp it. You get a C+ for this paragraph.

Seriously, though, unconstitutional laws are almost never challenged until they are broken, enforced unfairly, or until someone is planning to break them. That's just how it works. It's also how it SHOULD work because court cases like this cost tax payers and plaintiffs a lot of money, and there are enough shitty laws to fill 20 libraries of congress. Your candidate ran on that rhetoric in case you've forgotten.

Also, those people are in court for more than just the idea that their candidate lost. They're there because the winning candidate is just as much of a loon as the losing candidate is a crook. It's a scary situation for folks to be in, and some of them have deluded themselves into thinking they know one person or the other is actually REALLY better. Others are just as crazy or crooked as the candidate they supported. I haven't decided which category you fall into, just yet...

And just in case you haven't figured out where I stand... They're both trash, and I'll repeat it: I love watching the system chew them both up. It would be neat to see it spit one of them out in dramatic fashion so we could get some traction for actually fixing the broken system that even *your candidate* has spent an inordinate amount of time complaining about.

I didn't treat you like a political enemy. You replied to a comment to someone else, and you're unhappy that it made you are a part of that discussion?

Haha, you did. There's no question you did. Go back and read it. Also, I'm not unhappy that you've directed your anger at the other commenter towards me. On the contrary, I'm ecstatic that you've revealed yourself as the unreasonable buffoon that you are. When you chose not to acknowledge your lack of civility, I chose to match it out of respect for your communication style. I did it out of love...not anger or unhappiness. hugs

I didn't "check the other guy's post history". I've lived through it.

You've inferred what you want to read, and don't know what has been said. Why do you post?

So you checked his username to align it with his post history...whatever. There's very little difference. I'm sorry you were insulted by the idea that you'd make the extra click to look at someone's post history. I didn't intend it like that, and there's no reason to feel that way about checking someone's post history. This entire shitshow is a waste of time and getting to know someone through their comment history doesn't make it any more-so... What an insignificant inference to choose as an example... I guess it's fair to assume the rest of what I've "inferred" is too far beyond your capacity to argue.

Finally, I've already made it clear that I replied so that I could correct your failure to understand our electoral process....or at least help those who might be misinformed if they were to believe the nonsense in your comments. There's really no inference required to understand your perspective and position. It's all there in your comments plain as day, and it doesn't change the reality of what you've said when you pick little bits of my comments to take out of context for a one-line zinger. Have a great Saturday.

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 72

I replied using the same words you used with me. If that isn't civil, then deal with it.

OK, here's me dealing with it. The actual word "boo hoo" has very little to do with your lack of civility, and it doesn't indicate a lack of civility on my part. When you said "boo hoo," you implied that my complaint against you was based on the notion that I support efforts to foster faithless electors because I am vigorously invested (as you are) in which candidate becomes president. My perspective has nothing to do with which candidate will become president, and it shows a lack of civility that you would presume it does while attacking me. I'd be happy to help you understand other parts of your comments where you showed a lack of civility, if you want, but I'm sure you'd rather just continue behaving like a buffoon. I mean, seriously.. Ripping my 'advocating respect' line out of context like that for a sarcastic quip? Grow up kid.

If they can't keep their pledge to vote for their candidate, then they shouldn't be electors in the first place.

That's not what our founding fathers had in mind when they designed this system. They intended for electors to lose faith in their pledge if the circumstances called for it. If you can't accept that, and you don't have the gumption to suggest the system should be amended, then you never belonged in this country in the first place.

The process includes, in 26 states as I understand it, LAWS that require the electors to vote for the person that got them to the party. Taking these laws to court now is trying to subvert the process that was in place on election day and that was agreed to BY THE ELECTORS THEMSELVES.

Those laws were knowingly enacted in direct contradiction with our constitution. If you hadn't already demonstrated your meddle when you dragged this discussion into the gutter with your political bent, then we could have a meaningful conversation about federalism and states' rights. Suffice to say those electors have an obligation to honor the laws written into our constitution just like those 26 states had an obligation to advocate for a change to the electoral system rather than writing laws that contradict with it.

Tell me that changing the law after the fact isn't subverting the process.

Changing a law and challenging the constitutionality of a law are not the same thing. Since you've already demonstrated that you're incapable of understanding a simple fact like this, I really don't have much hope for continuing this conversation with you.

I'm so glad that you took the civil discourse pathway here. And if you can't detect it, that was sarcasm.

It's ironic that you joke about me being able to detect sarcasm while simultaneously failing to recognize that any hope of civil discourse went out the window when you flatly denied your obvious lack of civility after treating me like the political enemy you'd identified by checking the other guy's post history.

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 1) 72

Sorry... That wasn't civil and this reply isn't either- Boohoo, myself? Come on, now... Believe what you want, but genuinely and truly, I'm not invested in the results of their efforts one way or the other. Each candidate is bad for the country in their own way, and in my view, it's next to impossible to determine which one is more dangerous at this point. At the same time, some aspects of the electoral college are bad for the country and an alternative or a fix is badly needed. I don't care.

I love watching stuff like this play out, and I'm only advocating respect (including possible constructive criticism) of the process our founding fathers created. You're demonstrating willful ignorance of this process to suit your political agenda. The pledge is not meaningless. The pledge exists so that electors are forced to weigh their options carefully and avoid rash decisions. The fact of the matter is that the electoral college was intentionally designed so that "faithless electors" could influence the outcome of a presidential election. They and those appealing to them are not subverting the process. They are embracing it. You're the one spinning a yarn and spreading misinformation that runs contrary to the laws of our nation. This type of garbage subverts the integrity of our current election and corrupts the way citizens who fall victim to your lies might perceive future elections.

Comment Re: planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 2) 72

First, look who's jumping down throats... Please keep it civil. Second just the facts my friend... The electoral college was designed to allow electors the freedom to cast votes contrary to the pledge you've mentioned. THAT is the process. Folks trying to influence THAT process in the ways you've described happen to be exercising their constitutionally protected rights. The only thing being subverted is the typical order of electoral business. That typical order of business is not a process that's protected by our laws. It's just what you're used to. So, in truth, the only thing that's being subverted is your desire to follow the typical order of business. Boohoo... If you must complain, I recommend you direct your complaints at the actual process rather than leveling unfounded criticism towards the law abiding citizens who wish to make use of the intended flexibility of its design.

Comment Re:planned for AFTER hillary's election (Score 2, Informative) 72

Why would you characterize what he described as 'subverting' the process? The rules of the process were designed to allow for those scenarios. Therefore, they are following the process- not subverting it. Interestingly, the states that have introduced penalties for electors who choose to vote their conscience are the ones who are trying to subvert the process.

Comment Metal and paper, good. Petroplastics - landfill. (Score 1) 371

Considering the tangibile evidence that our species and , indeed, the entire planet is being poisoned by endocrine disruptors contained in petro-plastics; I don't understand why we're still wasting our time recycling these things. It only serves to extend the cycle of destruction while artificially propping up the market and supporting production of new petro-plastics. It's definitely worth suffering through the additional endocrine disruptor leech from our landfills until we've trashed the entire idea and moved on to bioplastics.

It's even becoming arguable that paper recycling is a carbon sinking enterprise that produces nasty chemical byproducts. With renewable crops like pine, eucalyptus, and hemp capable of producing paper; we'll eventually gain more efficiency by dumping paper waste into the landfill, as well.

Comment Re:$100,000,000 (Score 1) 205

No problem... I had a pretty good idea that you were coming from there, but I felt the need to defend my honor all the same.

I think years of reading and commenting on Slashdot has made my comments a little more confrontational than I intend sometimes.

Me too. I try to keep a handle on it, but when the urge becomes unbearable, I'm ashamed to admit that I'll check the post anonymously box.

Comment Re:$100,000,000 (Score 1) 205

Yea, that's pretty close to "plain evil." It's unfortunate for your argument that it's a terrible analogy. You should use a crime like profiting from market manipulation as a media mouthpiece for stock market commentary. Something like that... AT&T knew they were misrepresenting their product with doublespeak. The chorus of keyboard commandos in the ol' tubes calling them out for it made 100% sure of that. They just knew they could get away with it, and you know what... They did. 100,000,000 is nothing.

Slashdot Top Deals

Base 8 is just like base 10, if you are missing two fingers. -- Tom Lehrer

Working...