2016: Battle of the Dynasties?

Oooooh, look at you gettin' off a zinger now!

It was the second of the "Giant" novels, a concept Pocket was trying at the time. Vonda McIntyre's Enterprise: The First Adventure was the first.

Ya think?

It's an invitation for you to 'splain what you mean by "using it as political capital." As opposed to any other action by any other President.

No surprise, as it's an excellent read.

And, by the by, a far superior effort.

Who says there's any "as opposed to" about it? You're the one acting like Obama Chuck Norris'ed his way into that compound in Abbottabad and throat-punched Bin Laden all the way to Hell. Why don't you explain the difference, since you're the one who acted as if there is one.

So you agree that all Presidents make use of events that occur on their watch as political capital.

Only if you agree that none of them ever actually earn that political capital, which was actually my point.

Well, I'll give you this, Strangers from the Sky was one of the only decent attempts in Star Trek to give a remotely "realistic within the known continuity" of a 21st century Earth AFTER the Eugenics Wars (1992-96).

The things like the ocean farms, the large multipurpose submarines patrolling the oceans (kind of like maritime versions of the starship Enterprise), bored, out of work terrorists looking for action.

Not all do. I do not recall George H.W. Bush campaigning on "Look! The Soviet Union fell and we won the Gulf War!!!".

Ah. So "things just happen." Hokay.

Sweet Goob, I hope he doesn't run. We got away from Bush/Clinton/Bush. Let's stay away. I like Hillary well enough, and I think she'll probably run. Jeb Bush, I don't know him well enough, but if she runs, then he'll probably run, and it'll be Bush/Clinton all over again, and I don't want that. This is the kind of thing that gets annoying. Our electorate is sociopathic. They want someone new and different, but they also want someone who will use time tested ideas that follow tradition. Remember the episode of the Simpsons where Kang & Kodos finally figured it all out, and promised everyone abortions for some and miniature American flags for others? Well, if 2016 is Bush/Clinton territory again, I'm probably voting for Kodos.

Isn't the "things just happen" excuse the one liberals give all the time for the end of the Cold War and Reagan's role in it?

Then 'splain that to Castle, because he's the one making the point.

You're trying to have it both ways, here, and you're going to make an ass of yourself for your trouble. Either Obama was "creditable" for Bin Laden's removal from the planet, and Bush was right when he declared "Mission Accomplished", or they were both lousy, lying hacks who took credit for things they had no hand in achieving. There's no parsing between one and the other.

See, this is the kind of discussion I was hoping for.

Extraneous comma. And you're the one who just posted "none of them ever actually earn that political capital." So 'splain how that differs from "things just happen."

How on Earth do you draw that conclusion? If one person told the truth, others must necessarily have also told the truth? Or, alternatively, if one person is a liar, all are liars? That really the "logic" you want to use to make this argument?

Both were politicians. Politicians lie. That is a universal truth.

Ah, here we go. Variation on "all taxation is theft...but I'm still living in the country where everybody lies and everybody's stealing my money."

No more Bushes and Clintons.

Are you sure? I mean come on. He might've been an effective governor and a decent Shakespearean actor, but I still don't see how you can overlook his execution of those 4,000 colonists. Including Lt. Riley's entire family.

Of course Garamet, he forgot.

Only Republican politicians lie...........................

Which you've still never presented even a half-hearted defense against. If someone makes you give up your earnings with the threat of violence, it's still theft, official seal or no.

He's tough on crime.

Fair point. But given he executed those 4,000 so there would be enough food for the other 4,000 colonists, it would be more accurate to say he was gifted in "wealth transfers".

You know people who'd bother to offer a defense against your unsubstantiated ramblings?

You've yet to post those photos of yourself being held at gunpoint and shaken down.

Yeah -- anybody who actually thought I was wrong. Which, clearly, you, gul, dinner, Chardman, et al., do not. Because you don't bother to actually try to rebut anything, you just go mewling off like toddlers.

And here it is. The gun to every American's head. You don't pay the mob their protection money, they kidnap you and throw you in a cage. If you resist, they murder you. Either way, they steal all your shit anyway.

And yes, anybody forcibly taking money from you is theft.

So somewhere, at some time, you were able to present a rational argument. Too bad you're incapable of doing that here.

And yet, here you are. So either you do pay taxes or you don't earn enough to pay taxes. So it's all just talk.

Which I've done today. Don't bother trying for that weak tea gambit of, "You didn't present a rational argument" -- we can all see that I have done and that a flimsy excuse is your best counter to it.

Neither of which is any kind of answer to the fact that, yes, Americans are being forcibly extorted from by government. You want to pretend I haven't proved that taxation is theft, but every time I do prove it, as I've done tonight, you move the goalposts instead of even addressing the proof. Weak.

It's a fact: you pay the mob their protection money, or they throw you in a cage. You want to argue that taxation isn't theft? You show how that's not true. Don't even touch the goalposts. Argue your claim, or concede. There is no acceptable third option.

Not here.

And yet you're still here. Not in a cage. So either you do pay taxes or you don't earn enough to pay taxes.

Now, make your little speech a third time.

You're a member of the club by accident of birth, you don't mind taking advantage of the privileges of membership, you just don't want to pay the dues. That's what's known as a deadbeat.

As noted, this does not address the fuckin' point at all.

Are you really this fuckin' stupid? Do you really think that nobody is going to notice that you aren't actually addressing the topic? Seriously. I really want to know if you are genuinely this fuckin' dense. So stupid that you really think that dancing around the issue you brought up instead of honestly rebutting or conceding it is going to convince anybody to see things your way.

Are you actually that fucking stupid, that you think you can bluff your way through a confrontation that you initiated and then slunk away from.

Taxation is, in fact, fucking theft. People are fucking taking your money, and make you let them because you understand that if you don't let them take what you earned, they will kidnap you, and if you don't let them kidnap you, they will murder you. That is theft. It's nothing but theft. I didn't start this. You did. I've shown how it is. So you either acknowledge that it is, or show how it isn't.