FARK.com: (5) Fark Politics Forum

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Fark Politics Forum (fark.com)		2631
		More: Misc

• • •

5406 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM | Favorite | Watch | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/5

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

2631 Comments (+0 »)

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

Mike		2007-02-06 04:51:20 PM

(ok, maybe "asbestos underwear" dates me as an old usenet reader)

FatherG		2007-02-06 05:36:34 PM

No personal attacks? shiat man, might as well not even have the damned thing then :D

Btw Mike, you should really change the filter so when someone times Ni--er it comes out as "son of the congo". Just sayin'

Spektor		2007-02-06 05:36:44 PM

Our country is still run by the a group of idiots. This will never change in our life times.

/that should cover all the bases.

FatherG		2007-02-06 05:37:27 PM

Ok that was a weird typo.

times=says. Still needs to be switched to "son of the congo" though :p

Spektor		2007-02-06 05:37:40 PM

dangit

/preview
preview
preview...........

IXI Jim IXI		2007-02-06 05:40:15 PM

Mike: (ok, maybe "asbestos underwear" dates me as an old usenet reader)

:shrug: If that's the way you and Asbstos Underwear roll... :D

IXI Jim IXI		2007-02-06 05:41:40 PM

This country is run like it's ruled by a bunch of retarded monkeys. The only difference among them is which hand they use to throw poo.

Lord_Baull		2007-02-06 05:43:13 PM

If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

spontn80		2007-02-06 05:43:17 PM

ohhh look scathing political debate libtardydemocraticanhippiecon bastards

Maud Dib		2007-02-06 05:44:32 PM

Hi...is this where we sign up for the Flame War?

thomasdimera.tripod.com

IXI Jim IXI		2007-02-06 05:46:40 PM

Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Nah...we' just be waiting an extra five hours as they read the election results.

"and, tied for nith with one vote each are Abraham Abrams, Arnold Anderson, George Annui..."

Mr. Anon		2007-02-06 05:48:47 PM

Lord_Baull

If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

That is exactly the type of thinking I'd expect from some snaggletoothed monkey loving mongoloid.

/Did I just break the rules?

ToxicMunkee		2007-02-06 05:51:15 PM

Stay in milk, drink school!

Fakk		2007-02-06 05:51:24 PM

I have no idea what's going on here, but that's probably because I'm a hippie tree-hugging libtard.

Snarfangel		2007-02-06 05:54:13 PM

Lord_Baull
If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Heh, the last time I said something similar, I received an email that had a single sentence full of expletives. It's kind of funny to watch someone lose it like that.

unexplained bacon		2007-02-06 05:54:39 PM

Lord_Baull
If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

I don't know of a 3rd party that really represents my views any more than the two major parties. I end up voting strategically to get as close as I think I can get.

which party do you throw your votes away on anyway?

/hoping to see the a new third party soon

Mr.Asshat		2007-02-06 05:54:52 PM

What's going to happen in this thread?

Maud Dib		2007-02-06 05:56:16 PM

IXI Jim IXI [TotalFark]

Nah...we' just be waiting an extra five hours as they read the election results.

"and, tied for nith with one vote each are Abraham Abrams, Arnold Anderson, George Annui..."

That's why I'm changing my name before I run for Congress. To Aarnold Aamundson.

CravenMorehead		2007-02-06 05:57:30 PM

Mr.Asshat: What's going to happen in this thread?

Something wonderful.

IXI Jim IXI		2007-02-06 05:57:46 PM

Maud Dib: That's why I'm changing my name before I run for Congress. To Aarnold Aamundson.

Well, at least then you can just wait a few minutes to hear your name and turn the channel ;)

the_gospel_of_thomas		2007-02-06 05:58:54 PM

Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.

If America wants to change the political process to a model - such as - how Israel works theirs - then you'd have people voting for a dozen candidates, that then have to broker arrangements with each other to make a majority ...

I just see our system as being all right as it is, not perfect, but not needing some huge change.

/also, when Gore got the popular vote in 2000, that was an interesting footnote in history, but we don't elect presidents by popular vote. We use the electoral college. There was a movement to change from electoral to popular ( in California? ) and I remember mentioning that if it's accepted, and this time the republican won the popular, but the democrat would have won the electoral, that you'd see the same people whine and try to put it back again. i.e. leave it.

IXI Jim IXI		2007-02-06 05:59:27 PM

CravenMorehead: Something wonderful.

ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDINGS THERE. USE THEM TOGETHER. USE THEM IN PEACE."

StinkyFiddlewinks		2007-02-06 05:59:52 PM

This headline makes no sense to me.

ZAZ		2007-02-06 06:01:56 PM

Mike: (ok, maybe "asbestos underwear" dates me as an old usenet reader)

Looked perfectly normal to me.

/old usenet reader

unexplained bacon		2007-02-06 06:02:45 PM

the dems that voted to give the president the authority to invade iraq are just as responsible as the republicans for the mess in iraq.

whether or not saddam had wmd the post invasion phase was still not reasonably considered. even with a wmd armed saddam threatening the world the post-invasion phase was a consequence of the invasion that anyone should know needed addressing before the actual invasion. what's up with that?

/heh

Lord_Baull		2007-02-06 06:08:21 PM

Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.

So, next time we don't run a batshiat crazy fark and an incompetant VP...problem solved.

MasterThief		2007-02-06 06:13:12 PM

A perpetual flamewar thread. Good. Allow me to make the introduction:

THROUGH ME THE WAY TO ETERNAL PAIN,
THROUGH ME THE WAY AMONG THE LOST.
JUSTICE MOVED MY MAKER ON HIGH.
DIVINE POWER MADE ME,
WISDOM SUPREME, AND PRIMAL LOVE.
BEFORE ME NOTHING WAS BUT THINGS ETERNAL,
AND I ENDURE ETERNALLY.
ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE.

meddlin' kid		2007-02-06 06:17:35 PM

MasterThief: ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER HERE.

hey -- they said no personal attacks, and that's a straight dis...

Token Anarchist		2007-02-06 06:19:02 PM

Fark the troops.

Befuddled		2007-02-06 06:20:21 PM

Lord_Baull: If everyone that said "I don't want to waste my vote on a 3rd party candidate" would vote for a 3rd party candidate, maybe we can see some progress in the way government is currently run.

Why not just wish for people to vote in responsible and honest people from the existing two parties and vote out the dishonest ones regardless of their party. Get the politicians to clean up government by getting the dirty money out, publicly funding campaigns, and enacting ethical standards.

If there's a blizzard in hell and a third party does supplant one of the current two, it will not be any better than the party it supplants if people casting the votes don't change.

whidbey		2007-02-06 06:20:24 PM

Holy crap...a fireproof forum.

I guess we'll see how long this lasts...

Mouse-Pin_Dropping		2007-02-06 06:23:06 PM

Jack Johnson FTW.

AgentOrangeDrink		2007-02-06 06:27:20 PM

Lord_Baull

Ummm... last time we tried that, we got Ross Perot.

So, next time we don't run a batshiat crazy fark and an incompetant VP...problem solved.

Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.

vossiewulf		2007-02-06 06:28:40 PM

I'd like to say that, on principle, I am opposed to Pizza Hut Cheezy Bites pizza, and anyone who orders one is a lemonheaded terrorist.

sayntfuu		2007-02-06 06:31:16 PM

Who and the what now?

\this thread makes no sense

AgentOrangeDrink		2007-02-06 06:33:06 PM

Dammit, I forgot to set the porcupine on fire. I lose at the internets.

BizarroHulk		2007-02-06 06:35:31 PM

Your opinion is wrong!

My opinion is right!

the_gospel_of_thomas		2007-02-06 06:36:35 PM

AgentOrangeDrink: Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.'

*Nods my head in agreement*

meddlin' kid		2007-02-06 06:37:37 PM

AgentOrangeDrink: Dammit, I forgot to set the porcupine on fire. I lose at the internets.

huh. i thought you were going for a disjointed perotism. i thought it was funny....what does that make me lose at?

also, i agree with BizzaroHulk. +1

clifton		2007-02-06 06:38:56 PM

AgentOrangeDrink: Look, you can't put a porcupine in a barn and expect to get licorice.

Almost sounds like something a Dan Ratherism. Partisan shill, but I loved his sayings.

whidbey		2007-02-06 06:39:34 PM

the_gospel_of_thomas: *Nods my head in agreement*

Seriously, though.

You don't believe there should be more than the two established parties here in the US?

Where's the fun in that? You don't think that sooner or later people are going to get tired of the racket and vote a third party majority?

the_gospel_of_thomas		2007-02-06 06:45:44 PM

whidbey: 'You don't believe there should be more than the two established parties here in the US?'

You want more than two? How do you propose we change our political and government structures to facilitate that?

As for me, I'm satisfied with the (flawed but workable) system that we have. I'm not adverse to fixing whats wrong, per se, ( I especially despise the nomination process, for instance. I'd like to see them with all 50 states at once, not the chosen few one at a time as it is. For example, Illinois wants to move theirs up early, to give Obama the advantage ) however, If you are going to have a plurality, its going to necessitate quite a big change in procedure.

wildcardjack		2007-02-06 06:50:36 PM

I've been wanting to see hand written ballots. That'll make the parties in power fix education overnight, when they realize that if their constituents can read or write, they also can't vote.

The old reading test were rigged because the person administering the test chose the reading, and would ask the black man to read sanskrit.

All I want is to see blank ballots, perhaps with no offices or measures listed, and some minimum % of votes cast must have voted about the subject to retain the office or proposal.

Then we can also see repeat voters when they all look alike.

Thats right, DE-DIEBOLD the process. Sure, it'll take forever to count, but the results will be worth it. No more two party ballots.

whidbey		2007-02-06 06:51:19 PM

the_gospel_of_thomas: How do you propose we change our political and government structures to facilitate that?

I don't believe it's been a problem before.

We not have Independents in Congress...

And we have had other parties besides the Republicrats.

I'm just not seeing much of a choice these days. There's little difference between the two parties once you look past the surface.

If you are going to have a plurality, its going to necessitate quite a big change in procedure.

Please elaborate. What would have to change?

the_gospel_of_thomas		2007-02-06 06:57:15 PM

whidbey: 'Please elaborate. What would have to change?'

If you have 3, 4 or 5 political parties running for office, do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?

Abagadro		2007-02-06 06:57:17 PM

whidbey: What would have to change?

Single-member districts with first-past-the-post winners would have to change. That is the reason we have only two viable parties.

Running a-puck		2007-02-06 07:00:11 PM

I for one would like there to be no political parties. As it stands now about the only purpose that they serve is as a crutch for the mentally lazy, after all you don't have to think about the issues if you can just check off the little D or R. The main purpose of the parties seems to be to raise money for other people in that party to get elected. To that end here is my proposal:

You may not donate money to any specific candidate nor to any specific group of candidates. Any and all money shall be donated to a single pool. The money in that pool will then be divided amongst those who are running for a specific office and are legally eligable for that office.

Candidates for a given office may not spend their own money on any given campaign, save that they donate that money to the aforementioned pool.

Thoughts? (other than it will never happen, I know that.)

whidbey		2007-02-06 07:01:20 PM

the_gospel_of_thomas: do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?

How do you know that would be the case?

Perhaps there would be an overwhelming majority of voters.

Third parties have never broken the bank before. They promote diversity.

Abagadro: Single-member districts with first-past-the-post winners would have to change. That is the reason we have only two viable parties.

Change how?

Running a-puck		2007-02-06 07:02:07 PM

the_gospel_of_thomas: If you have 3, 4 or 5 political parties running for office, do you really want the office of the presidency to be determined by just 20% of the nations vote?

How about instant run-offs? Or instead of pick 1 you put the candidates on the ballot in order of preference.

Vic Sage		2007-02-06 07:02:42 PM

Anybody who doesn't agree with me is an uneducated retard!

//The very heart of farkness

Displayed 50 of 2630 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

Redisplay/refresh comments

Login:
Password:	Forgot password?	Create an account to make comments
	Remember me Use HTML Buttons
Comment:
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
	HTML enabled

Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Notify moderators about this thread (comment-related issues: posting rule violations, etc.)	...or Notify admins about this link (link/headline related issues: bad link, bad headline, repeats, etc.)
If you are about to post a question that requires an answer from us, use Farkback instead.