That is how I feel about coldplay, except I only like it while stoned.

which happens pretty frequently

FTFA: "It is a moral dilemma when you fancy someone but you don't agree with anything they say."

So find someone to issue a gag order, then bang the crap out of them.

/Last day of TotalFark, just wanted to say something to see the little tag next to my name
//Jk

Maybe it's just me, but Palin is not even remotely farkable. She actually makes me nauseous every time she opens her vile face hole. can someone please tell me what people see in her? Because to me, she seems full retard, nose-picking disgusting. Seriously, I cannot discern one singe feature of her that is at all attractive, or even tolerable.

What are people seeing in her that makes her seem like an acceptable human being? I just don't get it.

FloydA: Maybe it's just me, but Palin is not even remotely farkable. She actually makes me nauseous every time she opens her vile face hole. can someone please tell me what people see in her? Because to me, she seems full retard, nose-picking disgusting. Seriously, I cannot discern one singe feature of her that is at all attractive, or even tolerable.

What are people seeing in her that makes her seem like an acceptable human being? I just don't get it.

It's probably a personal thing, but to me there is a HUGE difference between "good looking" and "attractive." IMHO, Palin is good-looking, but utterly unattractive. A smart, informed, tactful, sane woman who looked exactly like her would be very attractive to me. I'm into MILFy brunettes, though, so maybe it's just me.

I dunno, this seems sort appropriate. Seeing as how Coldplay are completely oblivious and overrated throwbacks who think they have a lot of support, but who in reality are only liked by a bunch of self-absorbed dicks - Palin seems totally up their alley.

<Beavis>ehehe, I said "up their alley"</Beavis>

Was the exposition on the election really necessary in the article? Is this what we're calling journalism now?

And no, she's not attractive, and Chris Martin is a douche.

a) So farking what? Was this crap really worth writing about?
b) Also don't get what is 'attractive' about Palin. Yes, she is reasonably good looking, but since she comes across as a moronic biatch I couldn't get it up for her.

slackist: a) So farking what? Was this crap really worth writing about?

Hey, welcome to Fark. Once upon a time a guy from Kentucky noticed that the media tries to pass off a lot of worthless crap as news. In an effort to point this out and poke fun at the situation, he devoted a website to this phenomenon and later wrote a book titled "It's Not News, It's Fark: How Mass Media Tries to Pass Off Crap As News".

Don't worry, you'll catch on. If you have any questions, just ask someone in the forums. And again, welcome!

Tourney3p0: Once upon a time a guy from Kentucky noticed that the media tries to pass off a lot of worthless crap as news. In an effort to point this out and poke fun at the situation, he devoted a website to this phenomenon

Yeah, no. You've been around long enough to know this version is a rewriting of history. Thanks for playing.

/not that it matters, your point still plays

Coldplay... craptastic douchey music for craptastic, douchey people.

Sarah Palin - incredibly retarded, inbred Republican woman.

...wut

Lionel Mandrake: It's probably a personal thing, but to me there is a HUGE difference between "good looking" and "attractive." IMHO, Palin is good-looking, but utterly unattractive. A smart, informed, tactful, sane woman who looked exactly like her would be very attractive to me. I'm into MILFy brunettes, though, so maybe it's just me.

I have a coworker who looks just like her when her hair is pulled up. Always has been easy on the eyes. Good lucking in an plain way, she can wake up put no makeup on and be attractive. Palin had some self confidence too and seemed comfortable outdoors. Plus girls with guns are hawt.

/my SO has a gun safe with 12 guns
//she loves to skeet shoot

FloydA: Maybe it's just me, but Palin is not even remotely farkable. She actually makes me nauseous every time she opens her vile face hole. can someone please tell me what people see in her? Because to me, she seems full retard, nose-picking disgusting. Seriously, I cannot discern one singe feature of her that is at all attractive, or even tolerable.

What are people seeing in her that makes her seem like an acceptable human being? I just don't get it.

Agree, I don't get it either.

I found Palin attractive in the blessed few days between the first time I saw her picture and the first time I heard her speak.

Coldplay is what you get when you combine the worst of Radiohead with the worst of U2, turn the insipid up to eleven, and sprinkle it with powdered ghey.

The pair failed to win their campaign for the White House, after Democrat leader Barack Obama was voted in as America's president-elect.

This writer must get paid by the word. Penny wise, but pound foolish.

FloydA: Maybe it's just me, but Palin is not even remotely farkable. She actually makes me nauseous every time she opens her vile face hole. can someone please tell me what people see in her? Because to me, she seems full retard, nose-picking disgusting. Seriously, I cannot discern one singe feature of her that is at all attractive, or even tolerable.

What are people seeing in her that makes her seem like an acceptable human being? I just don't get it.



*BEEP* *BEEP*

She's farkable in a Dirty Sanchez-Donkey Punch-Angry Pirate-Strawberry Shortcake sort of way

FloydA: Maybe it's just me, but Palin is not even remotely farkable. She actually makes me nauseous every time she opens her vile face hole. can someone please tell me what people see in her? Because to me, she seems full retard, nose-picking disgusting. Seriously, I cannot discern one singe feature of her that is at all attractive, or even tolerable.

What are people seeing in her that makes her seem like an acceptable human being? I just don't get it.


Don't you love the tolerance and acceptance of the left?

I like her. She aint washingtonian and that's a good thing.

toddism: She aint washingtonian and that's a good thing.

too bad you at least have to have a bare minimum knowledge of Washington, or anything outside of Alaska, to actually run a whole farking country.


and you can play the "LOL tolerant left!" meme when I'm sure you were chanting "Secret muslim!" along with Palin.

/Coldplay is gay, but I would support their right to marry.

FloydA: Seriously, I cannot discern one singe feature of her that is at all attractive, or even tolerable.

She has nice teeth, I'll give her that.

toddism: She aint washingtonian and that's a good thing.

Neither is Al-Qaeda, but I'd prefer not to have them running my country...

Also, this:

hah! and you all thought he was gay! there is only a 50% chance he would have run away

FeedTheCollapse: toddism: She aint washingtonian and that's a good thing.

too bad you at least have to have a bare minimum knowledge of Washington, or anything outside of Alaska, to actually run a whole farking country.


and you can play the "LOL tolerant left!" meme when I'm sure you were chanting "Secret muslim!" along with Palin.

/Coldplay is gay, but I would support their right to marry.


When did I ever say anything about Muslim? He's a damned socialist. She's not.

Also - I do not want a president running the whole farking country. In fact, the president is not the issue. Congress is the issue. Congress spends money and passes legislationn.

Somebody is going to be sleeping on Gwyneth Paltrow's couch for a month after that remark. Also, the icing on the cake is his daughter is going to hate him for naming her Apple.

toddism:


Don't you love the tolerance and acceptance of the left?


I do not tolerate intolerance. That's not hypocrisy, it's common sense. She actively courted people who shouted "kill him" about her opponent. There is no excuse for tolerating threats against a presidential candidate, whether you agree with his policies or not. By advocating such behaviors, she has demonstrated that she is a supporter of terrorism, and I do not feel obligated to tolerate terrorism.

While we are on the subject, I also don't feel any obligation to tolerate the Klan, the Nation of Islam, the American Nazi party, racist skinheads, people who beat up homosexuals, child abusers, "Christian" dominionists, spouse abusers or anyone else who advocates violence.

The "tolerance of the left" does not require me to tolerate those who would make my life worse and take away my personal liberties. In fact, my commitment to tolerance requires me to actively oppose such groups. Unfortunately, the Republican party has been taken over by such people, so now I am obligated to oppose a party that I once respected.



I like her.


I'm sure you do.

She aint washingtonian and that's a good thing.


Complete ignorance of the history and laws of a nation are, generally speaking, not always advisable characteristics in an executive officer. She understands almost nothing about the United States, our laws or our history, and she therefore is not well suited to hold the office of the Presidency.

toddism:


When did I ever say anything about Muslim? He's a damned socialist.

FloydA: toddism:


When did I ever say anything about Muslim? He's a damned socialist.

Is he not? Did he not say he'd like to "spread the wealth around"? Does he not want to increase taxes on the rich and not only reduce taxes but supply refundable tax credits (income redistribution) to the poor?

Would you prefer Communist?

toddism: FloydA: toddism:


When did I ever say anything about Muslim? He's a damned socialist.

Is he not? Did he not say he'd like to "spread the wealth around"? Does he not want to increase taxes on the rich and not only reduce taxes but supply refundable tax credits (income redistribution) to the poor?

Would you prefer Communist?

Gasp! Setting tax rates to about what they were ten years ago! Communism!

toddism: FloydA: toddism:


When did I ever say anything about Muslim? He's a damned socialist.

Is he not?


Correct, he is not.



Did he not say he'd like to "spread the wealth around"?


Yes, he did. Ensuring that those who have benefited from the system the most (myself included) also shoulder the greatest burden in keeping that system in place is not "socialism," it's common sense.

I have done rather well as a result of our nation's economic system and as a result, I would like to see that system perpetuated. I do not trust that it will be perpetuated "by magic," and I realize that there must be some sort of payment for the services rendered. Since I am one of the beneficiaries of those services, paying for them is part of my responsibility.

This isn't really a difficult concept, is it?


Does he not want to increase taxes on the rich and not only reduce taxes but supply refundable tax credits (income redistribution) to the poor?

His plan includes adjusting tax rates back to where they were during the Reagan years. Doing so should help those in the lowest tax brackets to become producers as well as consumers of wealth. Cutting the taxes of the most wealthy while cutting services for the poorest has proven to be a nonviable strategy, since it keeps the many from investing in (and benefiting from) the social order while rewarding the few.

If you want the capitalist (relatively) free market system to persist, you will need consumers, as well as producers. You need shoppers and store owners both. Reducing the ability of the many poor to consume is the express route to reducing the effectiveness of the market. Sam Walton can make a lot of money and buy the computer software he needs from Bill Gates, and Bill Gates can buy his groceries at Wal Mart, but if those two very rich men are alone in their ability to buy and sell, then our nation's economic system is a complete failure. I would much rather see a million people buy five dollars worth of products than one person buy two million dollars worth. A two million dollar sale looks impressive, and a five dollar sale doesn't, but a million five dollar sales add up to much more than one two million dollar sales.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

The economy simply cannot survive on the basis of sales of mansions and yachts; there are not enough people buying those, and once you have one, you don't buy another for a long time.

The US economy benefits from the sale of a million loaves of bread a hell of a lot more than from the sale of one limosine.


Would you prefer Communist?


I would prefer if people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about and who have not even a first-year undergrad's understanding of economic theory kindly stop spewing terms that they clearly do not understand.

I don't expect to ever receive my preference, of course, but you asked what I would prefer.

Giving money to those who already have more than they can spend is not a viable economic strategy. Those who are already very well off (again, including me) are not going to increase our spending, since we are already getting everything we need and many things that we don't. The only way to increase total spending is to make certain that those who need to buy more than they are currently buying have the opportunity to do so. That means cutting taxes on the poor and raising the contributions to social services that differentially benefit the needy. Giving Bill Gates more money will not make him spend more because he is already spending as much as he possibly can. He will not be able to bail out the economy single handed. The solution is not to rely on a few millionaires bailing out the economy by giving up our hard-earned wealth, but by hoisting the lower-income people up into the middle class.

This is why the GI Bill was so successful in creating a five decade economic boom after WWII, and it is why we need a similar program today, now that the children of the beneficiaries of that program (who were the actual beneficiaries) are retiring.

This is really simple economic logic; it doesn't take a genius to grasp it. If 100 men spend 5 dollars each at your shop, you have made more than if one man spends 200 dollars.

I hope you understand what I have said.

FloydA: She actively courted people who shouted "kill him" about her opponent.

Stop getting your news from Kos and HuffPost because it makes you look like a moran.

I heard she puts out, so I'm all over it.

barneyfifesbullet: FloydA: She actively courted people who shouted "kill him" about her opponent.

Stop getting your news from Kos and HuffPost because it makes you look like a moran.

If you promise to stop getting all of your news from Fox, maybe we can talk.

Do you claim that this did not happen?
(1) ("He's a [N-word])


Equating Obama to a non-human

Claims that Obama is a terrorist.

People yelling "kill him," "treason," ""terrorist" and "off with his head".

Neither McCain nor Palin ever publicly repudiated those statements.


So, given that I have provided incontrovertible evidence of McCain and Palin both publicly condoning the use of extreme sanctions against their political opponents, do you want to retract your incredibly stupid assertion?

Yeah, I thought as much.

Welcome to my ignore list. You have nothing to say that is worth hearing.

FloydA: toddism: FloydA: toddism:


When did I ever say anything about Muslim? He's a damned socialist.

Is he not?


Correct, he is not.



Did he not say he'd like to "spread the wealth around"?


Yes, he did. Ensuring that those who have benefited from the system the most (myself included) also shoulder the greatest burden in keeping that system in place is not "socialism," it's common sense.

I have done rather well as a result of our nation's economic system and as a result, I would like to see that system perpetuated. I do not trust that it will be perpetuated "by magic," and I realize that there must be some sort of payment for the services rendered. Since I am one of the beneficiaries of those services, paying for them is part of my responsibility.

This isn't really a difficult concept, is it?


Does he not want to increase taxes on the rich and not only reduce taxes but supply refundable tax credits (income redistribution) to the poor?

His plan includes adjusting tax rates back to where they were during the Reagan years. Doing so should help those in the lowest tax brackets to become producers as well as consumers of wealth. Cutting the taxes of the most wealthy while cutting services for the poorest has proven to be a nonviable strategy, since it keeps the many from investing in (and benefiting from) the social order while rewarding the few.

If you want the capitalist (relatively) free market system to persist, you will need consumers, as well as producers. You need shoppers and store owners both. Reducing the ability of the many poor to consume is the express route to reducing the effectiveness of the market. Sam Walton can make a lot of money and buy the computer software he needs from Bill Gates, and Bill Gates can buy his groceries at Wal Mart, but if those two very rich men are alone in their ability to buy and sell, then our nation's economic system is a complete failure. I would much rather see a million people buy five dollars worth of products than one person buy two million dollars worth. A two million dollar sale looks impressive, and a five dollar sale doesn't, but a million five dollar sales add up to much more than one two million dollar sales.

Why is that hard for you to understand?

The economy simply cannot survive on the basis of sales of mansions and yachts; there are not enough people buying those, and once you have one, you don't buy another for a long time.

The US economy benefits from the sale of a million loaves of bread a hell of a lot more than from the sale of one limosine.


Would you prefer Communist?


I would prefer if people who have no idea what the hell they are talking about and who have not even a first-year undergrad's understanding of economic theory kindly stop spewing terms that they clearly do not understand.

I don't expect to ever receive my preference, of course, but you asked what I would prefer.

Giving money to those who already have more than they can spend is not a viable economic strategy. Those who are already very well off (again, including me) are not going to increase our spending, since we are already getting everything we need and many things that we don't. The only way to increase total spending is to make certain that those who need to buy more than they are currently buying have the opportunity to do so. That means cutting taxes on the poor and raising the contributions to social services that differentially benefit the needy. Giving Bill Gates more money will not make him spend more because he is already spending as much as he possibly can. He will not be able to bail out the economy single handed. The solution is not to rely on a few millionaires bailing out the economy by giving up our hard-earned wealth, but by hoisting the lower-income people up into the middle class.

This is why the GI Bill was so successful in creating a five decade economic boom after WWII, and it is why we need a similar program today, now that the children of the beneficiaries of that program (who were the actual beneficiaries) are retiring.



if you take all the money and re-distribute it so that everyone has the same amount and wait 10 years, you will find classes again. rich people will continue to do the things that made them rich (go to school, start businesses, etc). The poor will continue to do the things that made them poor (drop out of school, have kids they cannot afford, invest in lottery tickets).

income redistribution does not work. hard work usually does.

toddism: if you take all the money and re-distribute it so that everyone has the same amount...


Since Obama proposes no such thing, your comments are irrelevant. I recommend that you get your information about Obama's plans from Obama's website, rather than from Free Republic or Ann Coulter or wherever the hell you're getting it.

Listen very closely: Obama is not a socialist.

LARRY KING: You don't believe Barack Obama is a socialist do you?

JOHN MCCAIN: "No, but i do believe that he has been in the far left of American politics and stated time after time that he believes in spreading the wealth around. He has talked about courts that redistribute the wealth. He has a record of voting against tax cuts. And for tax increases."

Repeating the relevant bits.

KING: You don't believe Barack Obama is a socialist do you?

MCCAIN: "No.



Get it? Even McCain admits that calling Obama a socialist was overblown campaign rhetoric.

If you want to criticize Obama, that's fine. I recommend it- the President is our employee, not our boss, and I encourage scrutiny. But he is not a socialist, so find some valid reason to criticize him. Parroting the same shrill whining that gets spewed on Fox News only serves to further discredit the GOP.

toddism: He's a damned socialist. She's not.

You're a damned moron.

Andric: toddism: He's a damned socialist. She's not.

You're a damned moron.


You are the kind of intolerant dillweed that personfies the left. From your profile: The Republican party must be destroyed...

And you call me a moron?

I bought a troll
I bought a troll for you.
The one you wanted was blue.
But they only had yellow.

toddism: You are the kind of intolerant dillweed that personfies the left. From your profile: The Republican party must be destroyed...

And you call me a moron?

I'm a former republican, and I assume you are currently one. That means I used to be a moron, and you still are.

toddism: intolerant

Also: tolerance doesn't mean I'm not allowed to call you a tard. I daresay you have every right to be as ignorant as you like, but don't whine when people call you on it.