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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Republicans

Journal damn_registrars's Journal: The Kevlar Kandidate Sounds Off On ISIS 50

Journal by damn_registrars
Scott "Kevlar" Walker has boldly taken a stance to discriminate against all Syrians .

"The state of Wisconsin will not accept new Syrian refugees"

He was interestingly (and not unusually) countered by reality in the article:

Walker's office didn't clarify what authority the State of Wisconsin would have to block the entry of a legal resident of the United States to the state or how state officials would even know if a refugee moved to Wisconsin

But he certainly won't let that get in the way.

There is also a handy running tally of which governors are stepping in this so far - a current total of 26, of which 25 are republicans and at least two are officially running for the presidential nomination. It almost seems like the kevlar kandidate is actually trying to make his neighbor from Minnesota look better

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Kevlar Kandidate Sounds Off On ISIS More

The Kevlar Kandidate Sounds Off On ISIS

Comments Filter:
  • [troll]
    The immigration issue bolsters your thesis that Obama is a stealth conservative

    Under President Obama [twitter.com], Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats.

    Won't someone stop the madness? We're at risk of becoming a more representative democracy, and jeopardizing Her Majesty's coronation in 14 months.
    [/troll]

    • We're at risk of becoming a more representative democracy

      You've told us before how much you hate that idea. Obviously if the peasants cannot be trusted to vote the Right way, then someone will have to vote for them, right?

      • That would seem to be the elite thesis, yes.

        • That would seem to be the elite thesis, yes.

          One of us has been trying to take away the vote, and it is not me. Your timing does not give reason to believe that you genuinely want to take it away for non-partisan issues; that suspicion is aided by the fact that the "conservative" you named not long ago was actually a champion of that same vote.

          • One of us has been trying to take away the vote

            Wasn't me, either. I actually offer support (not always the off-year ones like this month) in my county as an Election Officer. The crucial thing about elections is pushing the turnout beyond the margin of fraud [thefederalist.com].

            • One of us has been trying to take away the vote

              Wasn't me, either.

              Wait, are you backing off on your previous assault on the 17th Amendment? You previously said it had to go. That is taking away the vote, and is directly in opposition to the standpoint of the last president you named as "conservative" (even if he was demonstrably less so in action than President Lawnchair).

              • Wait, are you backing off on your previous assault on the 17th Amendment?

                I have never assaulted, assailed, or besmirched the 17th Amendment in isolation. If you're inclined to give my views a fair hearing, I described a systemic "fundamental transformation" that occurred in the Wilsonian era that I feel leads directly to #OccupyResoluteDesk.
                But why would you offer a fair hearing?

                • Wait, are you backing off on your previous assault on the 17th Amendment?

                  I have never assaulted, assailed, or besmirched the 17th Amendment in isolation.

                  I have seen you directly call for the repeal of the 17th amendment on numerous occasions.

                  I feel leads directly to #SillyHashTagThatNobodyElseUsesAnywhereEver

                  This is the first time I have ever heard you suggest that the 17th amendment led to the election of President Lawnchair. You have previously used various other excuses as justification for taking away this voting right, but I had not seen you go for that excuse.

                  • You attention is drawn to the words "in isolation".

                    • You attention is drawn to the words "in isolation".

                      I think you and I would disagree on when you have - or have not - declared your wish to see the 17th amendment repealed in vacuo. As I just said, I have never previously seen you claim that the existence of the 17th amendment led to the election of President Lawnchair. Considering you have previously claimed that he has the ability to travel through time, I don't see how you would have been able to prevent his election to POTUS by repealing it any ways - unless you claim that his time travel ability only

                    • You know, if you could just spare half the prissy high-mindedness for the inarguable fact that the House of Representatives is a shambles [thirty-thousand.org], I might not think you such a recreational troll.

                    • the House of Representatives is a shambles [thirty-thousand.org]

                      Oh c'mon, just knock the population back down to, what, 75 - 80 million? You can frack California until it crumbles into the sea, it'll look like an accident.

                    • With #OccupyResoluteDesk busy dragging in whoever from wherever, so that he can give them your Social Security?
                      The no-talent rodeo clown would need a lot of "camps" for the diversity-challenged to depopulate the country that much.

                    • Oh my god! Is that where it's going?? Well, I certainly hope the incomparable #Starina [transgender-net.de] can filter out the wrong kind of whoevers that believe in any old whatever.

                    • I could be wrong. Despite seven years of continuous falsehood, it may be the case that the Syrian immigrant policy isn't pure cynicism [the-americ...terest.com].

                    • busy dragging in whoever from wherever, so that he can give them your Social Security

                      Wait a minute, I thought you said he was busy eating all the unborn children he could. Is he trying to simultaneously de-populate and over-populate the country? I hadn't heard of that as part of the illuminati / reptoid plan before. Are the older folks from non-christian-dominated countries better fuel for interstellar rocket ships or something?

                    • Why is it that you support spending billions upon billions on that massive expansion of government? Again, your partisanship is showing.
                    • Well, there has been a fatwah pronounced against Locke-loving, conservative, private-property oriented Americans, has there not? We all get the Tom Friedman [ace.mu.nu] treatment, in order to make room for a more agreeable population, don't we? Isn't it because of #Fairness?

                    • support spending billions upon billions on that massive expansion of government

                      But, seriously, who mentioned ObamaCare?

                    • This is an exciting new conspiracy you are developing, there. Please, educate the unwashed masses on where it comes from and how it reflects what you consider "reality".
                    • Well, obviously you will support HIIBA 2010 if it ever comes up again with the last name of a GOP'er on it. You supported the ideas in it, until like the rest of your GOP friends you realized it would be associate with a democrat. Now you and your GOP friends are supporting "new" versions of the bill - with the same content - because they have a different name on them.

                      More to the point - before your latest distraction - your aspiration to expand congress is not only directly counter to your usual aspi

                    • You're a real pip, you know that? Don't hesitate to pull out all the stops in your "moral" panic.

                    • I'm pretty sure I'm just asking questions, but maybe you know more than I do?
                    • In that case the answer to both of the questions you posted previously - at least, the ones that were least disconnected from reality - is no. The other question(s) are too disconnected from reality for one to even attempt to formulate an answer.

                    • Well, obviously you will support HIIBA 2010 if it ever comes up again with the last name of a GOP'er on it.

                      I will? As with fust-bomb, I find out the zaniest aspects of my own behavior by reading your utterances. I despise the idea that managing individual health care is a federal task. This, and all aspects of federal over-reach need to be eliminated.

                      You supported the ideas in it, until like the rest of your GOP friends you realized it would be associate with a democrat.

                      You're wrong, for the ~37k time.

                      Now you and your GOP friends are supporting "new" versions of the bill - with the same content - because they have a different name on them.

                      If you hate the concept as much as I do, because of your partisan fixations, we may have a collaboration opportunity. We can team up because I hate the concept, and you hate the GOP, and enough opposition could emancipate us from Lev

                    • As you say.
                    • I'm afraid I don't follow. Walter Russell Mead [wikipedia.org] is noted historian, even if I find him way too much of a Progressive apologist.

                    • Well, obviously you will support HIIBA 2010 if it ever comes up again with the last name of a GOP'er on it.

                      I will

                      You have proudly championed several proposals already that were nothing more than new names for the existing bill.

                      I despise the idea that managing individual health care is a federal task

                      Which, of course, is not an aspect of HIIBA 2010. Were you somehow trying to dispute my statement with that?

                      This, and all aspects of federal over-reach need to be eliminated.

                      Two different sets, there. Not sure what the connection is.

                      I hate the concept

                      The only thing you have demonstrated hatred towards regarding HIIBA 2010 is the fact that is is often nicknamed for a democrat. Every other claim you have made that is supposed to reflect your feelings towards it, you

                    • What's that phrase your friends like to use? "Gotcha" questions? Your previous oddly-worded questions look to be squarely within that category.

                    • for the existing bill

                      What. Existing. Bill?
                      You're cute when you behave as though the (un)Affordable Care(lessness) Act were other than a moving target and wealth transfer scheme for the Democrat party, with passing resemblance to an insurance policy. At no point was it not a river of lies.

                      not an aspect of [ObamaCare]. Were you somehow trying to dispute my statement with that?

                      Well, I wouldn't expect you to come clean about ObamaCare being a stalking horse for Single Payer. That's not how Progressive taqiyya works.

                      The. Stunted. State. Of. The. House

                      . Please feel free to elaborate on this.

                      You're so cute when you play possum => http://thirty-thousand.org/ [thirty-thousand.org]

                      but do you have anything at all to support the claim?

                      This thread itself, like common s

                    • Do you expect me not to use "gotcha questions" right back at you?

                    • for the existing bill

                      What. Existing. Bill?

                      OK, my mistake. Properly it should be called a law. HIIBA 2010 has been law for several years now.

                      wealth transfer scheme for the Democrat party

                      That is a fun new conspiracy, there. The reality is much worse; the insurance industry owns both parties. This is why we keep seeing bills like HIIBA 2010 come up as "replacements" for HIIBA 2010 that don't change anything, every lawmaker in DC is a servant to the insurance industry.

                      not an aspect of [ObamaCare]. Were you somehow trying to dispute my statement with that?

                      Well, I wouldn't expect you to come clean about [smitty's favorite conspiracy regarding HIIBA 2010 this week]

                      Why would I accept your conspiracy to somehow reflect reality? You can't provide any support for it, as none exists. You m

                    • I would be interested in knowing where you think I used a gotcha question.

                    • How would adding more representatives change this "stunted" house?

                      Would improving the ratio of representatives to voters help?

                    • How would adding more representatives change this "stunted" house?

                      Would improving the ratio of representatives to voters help?

                      Only if the help you want is for them to not pass legislation. The larger the house becomes, the more members you need to reach a supermajority. And considering how close to a 50:50 split our country is in terms of party division, expanding the house would likely only bring more gridlock.

                      Of course, gridlock favors the current status quo, which favors your political view. What I don't see though is how shredding even more money would help it. If you just want to slow down the house there are more ec

                    • The larger the house becomes, the more members you need to reach a supermajority.

                      But wouldn't lowering the amount of competing votes for your political expression improve the overall democratic content of our politics? Isn't that the basis for your argument in favor of the 17th Amendment? Looking for a modicum of consistency from you here.

                      Of course, gridlock favors the current status quo, which favors your political view.

                      It does? I want to see reform, and a federalist trimming of Leviathan. The gridlock favors the Progressive, gradual expansion of Leviathan which commenced with Wilson's Folly. The center of gravity has shifted from the House over to the Executive, alon

                    • The larger the house becomes, the more members you need to reach a supermajority.

                      But wouldn't lowering the amount of competing votes for your political expression improve the overall democratic content of our politics?

                      There are indeed words in that statement, but I'm not sure you picked them more specifically than randomly.

                      Isn't that the basis for your argument in favor of the 17th Amendment?

                      My argument is based on the crazy notion that in a democracy, the people who represent the people in it should be elected by the people who are represented.

                      The gridlock favors the Progressive

                      History shows exactly the opposite of that claim. We've had a 10+ year orgy of conservative legislation in DC, and when nothing happens that legislation mostly stays in place. Even for the cases where the legislation expires, the end result is

                    • There are indeed words in that statement, but I'm not sure you picked them more specifically than randomly.

                      Stunning. Let me break it down for you. Is it better if your vote has to compete with
                      (a) Five other legal voters, or
                      (b) Ten other legal voters?
                      If you choose (b), you're probably hunky-dory with Progress creating a new aristocracy. You probably shout how the 17th Amendment made things "more democratic", while refusing to engage in critical thinking of how power became overly concentrated in Leviathan.

                      the people who represent the people in it should be elected by the people who are represented.

                      Have you appreciated the original design of the Constitution, or the ramifications of the 17th Amendment?

                    • Let me break it down for you. Is it better if your vote has to compete with (a) Five other legal voters, or (b) Ten other legal voters?

                      I can't tell at that point if you see the bigger "benefit" of your plan being that individual representatives are less impactful in DC (by virtue of having far more of them) or that each representative is representing fewer people. Being as that is exactly what you would be doing - while also burning another enormous pile of federal money - it seems you enjoy both sides.

                      I guess if I thought my two Senators (Kaine and Warner) were more than tools of the Democrat party, and certainly representing DC more than Virginia,

                      I'm not sure why you kept trying to play coy about this ambition for so long. Obviously you have been hoping that by revoking the peopl

                    • Let me break it down for you. Is it better if your vote has to compete with
                      (a) Five other legal voters, or
                      (b) Ten other legal voters?

                      I can't tell at that point if you see the bigger "benefit" of your plan being that individual representatives are less impactful in DC (by virtue of having far more of them) or that each representative is representing fewer people. Being as that is exactly what you would be doing - while also burning another enormous pile of federal money - it seems you enjoy both sides.

                      Gosh, as a federalist, I see anything that lowers the power of individuals and the federal government as a plus. And your sudden fiscal conservative swing is amusing--the executive bloat *is a result* of the freezing of the House size in 1910. Doing something *about* that would mean moving power back to the Legislative Branch. It (could) also unwind the scope creep of Leviathan, and avoid cost overall. Eventually. Once the Progressive wreckage is cleared.

                      I guess if I thought my two Senators (Kaine and Warner) were more than tools of the Democrat party, and certainly representing DC more than Virginia,

                      I'm not sure why you kept trying to play coy about this ambition for so long. Obviously you have been hoping that by revoking the peoples' right to elect their senators directly, you can get more republicans into the Senate.

                      I'll be sporting and give you a chance to walk back t

                    • I see anything that lowers the power of individuals and the federal government as a plus.

                      Well, you certainly do well at supporting motions to "lower the power of individuals". The various anti-voter movements that your party has championed for some time do a lot for that.

                      And your sudden fiscal conservative swing is amusing

                      I'm just saying you are a hypocrite for supporting this huge spending while claiming to be concerned about government spending. This would create more red ink than HIIBA 2010 by a long shot. Although your insatiable appetite for redundant investigations against one of your favorite witches is also hypocritical from a budge

                    • tl;dr: You're hitting peak malarkey here.
                    • Wait, quoting you and pointing out what you said is "malarkey"? What are we supposed to discuss then, curling scores?

                    • More often than not you like to misquote people. This I personally know for a fact. So, when Mr. Smith says you are full of it, chances are it is true. I know it's true when I say it, to you or him.

                    • If you're not reading here, either, then why did you bother to post? Is your foot just so delicious that you can't stand to pass on a chance to shove it squarely into your own mouth?

                    • I like watching you lie. A little poke always helps to move things along a bit.

                    • I like watching you lie.

                      I'm sorry to disappoint, then. You must be having a pretty dull day.

                    • Not at all, you're doing fantastic! Keep up the good work.

  • He isn't the only idiot.

    • He isn't the only idiot.

      Indeed they are not in short supply. Interesting that the Kevlar Kandidate made himself look stupid and made his neighbor (who replaced The Teflon Candidate) look rational and worldly simultaneously.

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or FORTRAN.

Close