Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Economist)   Point: The Republican Party is a dysfunctional mess. Counterpoint: Ooh, look at me, I read The Economist   (economist.com ) divider line 103
    More: Obvious, human beings, Republican nominee, American politics, swing states, Jeb Bush, pragmatism  
•       •       •

2235 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Dec 2011 at 10:52 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-12-30 11:46:31 AM  

spman: Except the white supremecist and kooks of that ilk are not Republicans and most do not self identify as such.


The KKK was recruiting at teabagger rallies. They know their people.
 
2011-12-30 11:47:31 AM  

spman: DGS: Kibbler: spman: Democrats are composed of more than a dozen or so different ideologies ranging from self proclaimed Socialists and Communists all the way to blue dog Democrats, all of which have ideas that are radically different from each other.

Republicans are composed of at most, maybe four different ideologies, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, those keen on Jesus, and the libertarian types, and while they may have a few fundamental disagreements, they mostly agree on a lot of the same key principals.

You tell me who is more dysfunctional.

The Democratic Party is dysfunctional? Gasp!!! This comes as astonishing news to liberals! We thought everything was going well!

Oh, and if the Democratic Party contains "self proclaimed Socialists and Communists" then the GOP contains "self proclaimed white supremacists, birthers, secessionists, and homophobes."

This. +1

Except the white supremecist and kooks of that ilk are not Republicans and most do not self identify as such. In fact I remember a certain Fred Phelps who was pretty buddy buddy with Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and guys like David Duke switch their political affiliation all the time based on what convenient. The difference is that Democrats have no problem rubbing elbows with the far fringe portion of their party. You're not ever going to find a Republican bragging about being endorsed by Stormfront.


Except back in 2008, right? When Derek Black, the 19-year-old son of racist webmaster and former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Don Black, was elected to the position of Republican Party committeeman in West Palm Beach, Fla.
 
2011-12-30 11:48:48 AM  

spman: DGS: Kibbler: spman: Democrats are composed of more than a dozen or so different ideologies ranging from self proclaimed Socialists and Communists all the way to blue dog Democrats, all of which have ideas that are radically different from each other.

Republicans are composed of at most, maybe four different ideologies, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, those keen on Jesus, and the libertarian types, and while they may have a few fundamental disagreements, they mostly agree on a lot of the same key principals.

You tell me who is more dysfunctional.

The Democratic Party is dysfunctional? Gasp!!! This comes as astonishing news to liberals! We thought everything was going well!

Oh, and if the Democratic Party contains "self proclaimed Socialists and Communists" then the GOP contains "self proclaimed white supremacists, birthers, secessionists, and homophobes."

This. +1

Except the white supremecist and kooks of that ilk are not Republicans and most do not self identify as such. In fact I remember a certain Fred Phelps who was pretty buddy buddy with Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and guys like David Duke switch their political affiliation all the time based on what convenient. The difference is that Democrats have no problem rubbing elbows with the far fringe portion of their party. You're not ever going to find a Republican bragging about being endorsed by Stormfront.


Most of Stormfront want Ron Paul as President. Last time I checked Ron Paul was running as a Republican.

Oh look what I found.

cdn2.dailycaller.com

That is the founder of Stormfront and his son.

I agree though most of the racists don't say they are Republicans they say they are Tea Party Patriots.
 
2011-12-30 11:50:40 AM  

MFL: The candidates aren't "rock stars" this time around


cannazine.co.uk

We had a rock star last time.
 
2011-12-30 11:50:53 AM  

GWLush: MFL: GWLush: MFL: 1. Romney is a 100 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

2. Gingrich is 1000 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

4. You guys are putting in the effort I give you that, but in reality you are just stroking yourselves

Care to wager?

Sure. Name your price

$50?


$10,000
 
2011-12-30 11:51:07 AM  
Republicans are dysfunctional? You don't say. I guess that's what happens when the primary objective of your party is the opposition to a free, just, and equitable society.
 
2011-12-30 11:52:01 AM  

DarwiOdrade: GWLush: Care to wager?

Be careful - he may have statisticals up his sleeve.


He's probably betting on the recent Republican efforts to change the rules of the game in a number of key states by limiting early voting and absentee ballots as well as instituting new rules for voter identification. Republican strategists know they only need to skew the vote by a few percentage points in a few pivotal states and are not above changing the playing field to do it.
 
MFL
2011-12-30 11:53:19 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: MFL: 3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

He's going to win in a landslide. And the president hasn't had much to say about the GOP clown show. Right wing media is doing all the work for him. They're the ones tearing down all of your deities.


Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

November is a long way away and all of this nonsense will be forgotten. Obama is polling worse than Jimmy Carter did right now and he's not even had his turn in the barrel. The primary will be all but over by April and the GOP will be solely focused on the failure in the whitehouse. Unless the GDP somehow explodes to 4 or 5 % next summer Obama will not get a second term.
 
2011-12-30 11:54:07 AM  

Arkanaut: GWLush: MFL: GWLush: MFL: 1. Romney is a 100 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

2. Gingrich is 1000 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

4. You guys are putting in the effort I give you that, but in reality you are just stroking yourselves

Care to wager?

Sure. Name your price

$50?

$10,000


No thanks. I don't bet crazy amounts of money.
 
2011-12-30 11:57:16 AM  

MFL: HotWingConspiracy: MFL: 3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

He's going to win in a landslide. And the president hasn't had much to say about the GOP clown show. Right wing media is doing all the work for him. They're the ones tearing down all of your deities.

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

November is a long way away and all of this nonsense will be forgotten. Obama is polling worse than Jimmy Carter did right now and he's not even had his turn in the barrel. The primary will be all but over by April and the GOP will be solely focused on the failure in the whitehouse. Unless the GDP somehow explodes to 4 or 5 % next summer Obama will not get a second term.


So, it's a bet then?
 
2011-12-30 11:58:43 AM  
The Economist issue that week should have just been a postcard with "GOP: Get your shiat together, chucklefarks" in 40pt Impact.
 
2011-12-30 11:58:57 AM  

tcan: Otherwise Just Fine: The economist is a very expensive liberal magazine to subscribe to. I bought a subscription for every member of my family who went 'bagger.

It's a sneaky way to get information from a liberal viewpoint to people who don't want to be exposed to information. It actually helped immensely. The 'bagger relatives can have decent conversation with me about articles from the magazine, and we can talk about some things in a liberally biased factual way, which is nice.

But damned expensive.

There FIFY


I'm always amused when someone calls something liberal or conservative as that really matters. You are one of two people - either you are someone who reads it to reinforce your per-conceived worldview or you are someone who realizes the ideological bent (however extreme it may or may not be) and reading it to gain new information or a different take on a subject regardless of your own political ideology.
 
MFL
2011-12-30 12:00:35 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: MFL: Republican primaries are always messy. This time is no different. The candidates aren't "rock stars" this time around but the President is so weak it won't take much to beat him.

As a democrat I would be more worried right now that the GOP looks to have a very strong field for years to come if you look at their current governors and young congressmen. Besides Cumo who do the democrats really have moving forward?


Actually, the Republican primaries have always been fairly tidy, owing mostly to the winner take all aspect. For the past 20 years, the nomination has been decided by South Carolina.


I agree, but in that two month span the claws are out.
 
2011-12-30 12:03:50 PM  

monoski: spman: Democrats are composed of more than a dozen or so different ideologies ranging from self proclaimed Socialists and Communists all the way to blue dog Democrats, all of which have ideas that are radically different from each other.

Republicans are composed of at most, maybe four different ideologies, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, those keen on Jesus, and the libertarian types, and while they may have a few fundamental disagreements, they mostly agree on a lot of the same key principals.

You tell me who is more dysfunctional.

Funny, it is not a contest to see who can be the most screwed up. Both sides are looking bad but this does not excuse the field the GOP threw out for this election and I am a registered republican and the candidates are just embarrassing.


Will this prevent you from voting for one of them though?
 
2011-12-30 12:05:03 PM  

Otherwise Just Fine: The economist is a very expensive magazine to subscribe to. I bought a subscription for every member of my family who went 'bagger.

It's a sneaky way to get information to people who don't want to be exposed to information. It actually helped immensely. The 'bagger relatives can have decent conversation with me about articles from the magazine, and we can talk about some things in a factual way, which is nice.

But damned expensive.


I subscribed for years but after they added color and bumped the price to above a c note I could no longer justify it
 
2011-12-30 12:09:53 PM  

Toaster4k: monoski: spman: Democrats are composed of more than a dozen or so different ideologies ranging from self proclaimed Socialists and Communists all the way to blue dog Democrats, all of which have ideas that are radically different from each other.

Republicans are composed of at most, maybe four different ideologies, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, those keen on Jesus, and the libertarian types, and while they may have a few fundamental disagreements, they mostly agree on a lot of the same key principals.

You tell me who is more dysfunctional.

Funny, it is not a contest to see who can be the most screwed up. Both sides are looking bad but this does not excuse the field the GOP threw out for this election and I am a registered republican and the candidates are just embarrassing.

Will this prevent you from voting for one of them though?


Yes, I will be voting for Fartbongo and not voting in the primaries
 
2011-12-30 12:09:57 PM  

MFL: HotWingConspiracy: MFL: 3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

He's going to win in a landslide. And the president hasn't had much to say about the GOP clown show. Right wing media is doing all the work for him. They're the ones tearing down all of your deities.

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

November is a long way away and all of this nonsense will be forgotten. Obama is polling worse than Jimmy Carter did right now and he's not even had his turn in the barrel. The primary will be all but over by April and the GOP will be solely focused on the failure in the whitehouse. Unless the GDP somehow explodes to 4 or 5 % next summer Obama will not get a second term.


The base will leave Romney hanging and he IS the nominee. Obama is running against congress anyway.

Landslide. Just deal.
 
MFL
2011-12-30 12:14:35 PM  

qorkfiend: MFL: GOP looks to have a very strong field for years to come if you look at their current governors and young congressmen

Which governors and congressmen? Rick Scott? Scott Walker? Paul Ryan? Eric Cantor? Mitch Daniels? Don't make me laugh.


I'd add Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Bobbie Jindal, Allen West, and that hot governor from South Carolina to your list.

I get it you loathe them...but you loathe anyone the DNC puts it's sights on. You can either wake up and realize your party is in trouble and fix it...or just blame it all on voter fraud when see your "permanent" majority turn into a bump in the road until your children fall in love with the next big democrat failure that can give a speech.
 
2011-12-30 12:16:13 PM  

DarwiOdrade: LOL!

Just wondering...Who are you picking for the superbowl?



Awwwww lol.
 
2011-12-30 12:18:17 PM  

GWLush: MFL: HotWingConspiracy: MFL: 3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

He's going to win in a landslide. And the president hasn't had much to say about the GOP clown show. Right wing media is doing all the work for him. They're the ones tearing down all of your deities.

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

November is a long way away and all of this nonsense will be forgotten. Obama is polling worse than Jimmy Carter did right now and he's not even had his turn in the barrel. The primary will be all but over by April and the GOP will be solely focused on the failure in the whitehouse. Unless the GDP somehow explodes to 4 or 5 % next summer Obama will not get a second term.

So, it's a bet then?


*Crickets*
 
2011-12-30 12:20:11 PM  

DamnYankees: I dont know why, but this headline made me laugh.


It's because OP stole it from the Onion.
 
2011-12-30 12:20:18 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: MFL: HotWingConspiracy: MFL: 3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

He's going to win in a landslide. And the president hasn't had much to say about the GOP clown show. Right wing media is doing all the work for him. They're the ones tearing down all of your deities.

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

November is a long way away and all of this nonsense will be forgotten. Obama is polling worse than Jimmy Carter did right now and he's not even had his turn in the barrel. The primary will be all but over by April and the GOP will be solely focused on the failure in the whitehouse. Unless the GDP somehow explodes to 4 or 5 % next summer Obama will not get a second term.

The base will leave Romney hanging and he IS the nominee. Obama is running against congress anyway.

Landslide. Just deal.


Exactly how I see it too. I was one who through out the fall in line/fall in love statement some time ago before Gingrich's resurgence. I knew that the religious base didn't like Romney but I had figured they would have gotten over it by now. The negative sentiment there is as strong as it ever was. Romney will get the nom and the majority of the religious wing will stay home. I am not sure about the landslide, but short of him devouring a baby on the whitehouse lawn Obama has this election. You can't seriously look at these jokers and think they can compete. Romney has poor charisma and his speaking technique is just not good. Gingrich has a good stage presence and delivery but the he literally shoots himself in the foot almost every other time he speaks. Plus Gingrich's shenanigans as speaker (and infidelity) is a massive amount of baggage swining in the wind behind him. Everyone else is out (unless something absolutely insane happens, which is possible given the race so far.)
 
MFL
2011-12-30 12:21:11 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: MFL: HotWingConspiracy: MFL: 3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

He's going to win in a landslide. And the president hasn't had much to say about the GOP clown show. Right wing media is doing all the work for him. They're the ones tearing down all of your deities.

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

November is a long way away and all of this nonsense will be forgotten. Obama is polling worse than Jimmy Carter did right now and he's not even had his turn in the barrel. The primary will be all but over by April and the GOP will be solely focused on the failure in the whitehouse. Unless the GDP somehow explodes to 4 or 5 % next summer Obama will not get a second term.

The base will leave Romney hanging and he IS the nominee. Obama is running against congress anyway.

Landslide. Just deal.


No. Obama is running against ihimself. Political strategy or wishful thinking won't change that fact.

I agree with you that it will be a landslide however
 
2011-12-30 12:21:37 PM  

MFL: qorkfiend: MFL: GOP looks to have a very strong field for years to come if you look at their current governors and young congressmen

Which governors and congressmen? Rick Scott? Scott Walker? Paul Ryan? Eric Cantor? Mitch Daniels? Don't make me laugh.

I'd add Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Bobbie Jindal, Allen West, and that hot governor from South Carolina to your list.

I get it you loathe them...but you loathe anyone the DNC puts it's sights on. You can either wake up and realize your party is in trouble and fix it...or just blame it all on voter fraud when see your "permanent" majority turn into a bump in the road until your children fall in love with the next big democrat failure that can give a speech.


1) Hurr
2) The projection is strong with this one
 
2011-12-30 12:26:02 PM  

MFL: No. Obama is running against ihimself. Political strategy or wishful thinking won't change that fact.


Sadly for you, it's already working.
 
2011-12-30 12:26:46 PM  

MFL: qorkfiend: MFL: GOP looks to have a very strong field for years to come if you look at their current governors and young congressmen

Which governors and congressmen? Rick Scott? Scott Walker? Paul Ryan? Eric Cantor? Mitch Daniels? Don't make me laugh.

I'd add Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Mitch Daniels, Bobbie Jindal, Allen West, and that hot governor from South Carolina to your list.

I get it you loathe them...but you loathe anyone the DNC puts it's sights on. You can either wake up and realize your party is in trouble and fix it...or just blame it all on voter fraud when see your "permanent" majority turn into a bump in the road until your children fall in love with the next big democrat failure that can give a speech.


Marco Rubio sunk himself with the hispanic demographics in all the bullshiat he spewed about where he came from and without that appeal the rest of the party has little use for him. Paul Ryan's healthcare debacle nuked his prospects and Jindal was skewered on volcanos as well as the disaster that was the sand berms during the oil spill. Thats three of your "up and comers" who are no longer up and comers. Those coincidentally are the three I primarily know about. Also, didn't Mitch Daniels just have a big part of his agenda recalled by the populace? Not to mention Eric Cantor is tied to Boehner's coattails since they both take part in managing the House... The same House who is REVILED by the United States population as a whole.

I'd vote for Batman
/shiat, Allen west. Nev mind
 
2011-12-30 12:35:46 PM  

MFL: HotWingConspiracy: MFL: HotWingConspiracy: MFL: 3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

He's going to win in a landslide. And the president hasn't had much to say about the GOP clown show. Right wing media is doing all the work for him. They're the ones tearing down all of your deities.

Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line.

November is a long way away and all of this nonsense will be forgotten. Obama is polling worse than Jimmy Carter did right now and he's not even had his turn in the barrel. The primary will be all but over by April and the GOP will be solely focused on the failure in the whitehouse. Unless the GDP somehow explodes to 4 or 5 % next summer Obama will not get a second term.

The base will leave Romney hanging and he IS the nominee. Obama is running against congress anyway.

Landslide. Just deal.

No. Obama is running against ihimself. Political strategy or wishful thinking won't change that fact.

I agree with you that it will be a landslide however


Obama has a few things going for him.

OBL killed on his watch
Pulling troops out of Iraq
Successful in Lybia without a single soldier death
Repealed DADT
Healthcare reform

I am very lukewarm on Obama. I think he had promise but is too much of a pussy when it comes to dealing with the obstructionists. That being said there is no way in hell you can look at the current crop of Republican Cartoon characters and think, "That guy would make a great President". Hell you guys can't even decide who that guy is. It changes every week, Your biggest frontrunner was a pizza chain CEO. The reason he got the biggest jump was because he made Islamaphobic rants and seemed to parrot everything you read on WND.

The Republicans are running on more tax cuts, deregulating everything, using religion to pass laws, ensuring the rich get richer, making abortion illegal even in cases of rape or incest, punishing gays for being gay, deporting all illegals, etc. Moderates look at that shiat and think it is lunacy. You guys have seemed to forgotten Bush (who would be called a RINO today). The rest of the country hasn't.
 
2011-12-30 12:39:52 PM  
Well the GOP is no longer a national party, but the neo-confederate party. And just like the Confederates of the 1860's, they are incompetent at governing, make hysterical decisions, easily offended, and prone to irrational violence, but their not racists they just want brown people to know their place.
 
2011-12-30 12:43:15 PM  
Although the presidency is theirs for the taking

Why? Why is it theirs for the taking?

Badminton journalism finally hits the Economist.
 
2011-12-30 12:45:09 PM  

GhostFish: I'm an independent, and until the campaign began I would have been okay with the idea of a Romney presidency. I'm completely disgusted by the GOP's behavior in general over the past few years, but Romney hasn't been in office and so I couldn't really blame him for the behavior of his fellow Republicans.

But, then the campaign began. And Romney is making the same mistakes that Cain made that alienated me. He's abandoning all attempts at being even-handed and moderate and diving right into the crazy - head first.


IMO, if Romney ever becomes President, he'll turn out to be another Bush. Not necessarily in terms of foreign policy -- I can't see anyone* launching another major land war in the next ten years -- but in the effort to privatize everything that the government does. You'll see more proposals like Medicare Part D and privatizing Social Security -- Romney's already mentioned privatizing veterans' health care. Not only would that probably mean worse service for more pay for those who have sacrificed the prime years of their lives for this country, but also that you and your representatives in Congress will have less say over how those services are run.

* anyone who has a realistic shot at the presidency, that is.
 
2011-12-30 12:53:06 PM  

bravian: tcan: Otherwise Just Fine: The economist is a very expensive liberal magazine to subscribe to. I bought a subscription for every member of my family who went 'bagger.

It's a sneaky way to get information from a liberal viewpoint to people who don't want to be exposed to information. It actually helped immensely. The 'bagger relatives can have decent conversation with me about articles from the magazine, and we can talk about some things in a liberally biased factual way, which is nice.

But damned expensive.

There FIFY

I'm always amused when someone calls something liberal or conservative as that really matters. You are one of two people - either you are someone who reads it to reinforce your per-conceived worldview or you are someone who realizes the ideological bent (however extreme it may or may not be) and reading it to gain new information or a different take on a subject regardless of your own political ideology.


While I sort of agree with you in theory, the practical reality is that most publications both conservative and liberal are long on opinions and short on facts. I don't need my opinions "reinforced", I prefer to try and find facts in order to form them. What I object to is the belief that if only other people read the right (no pun intended) magazine or newspaper they will see the truth as I see it. I actually do believe that intelligent people can look at the same facts and form different opinions based on their life experiences and that people who want the same outcomes can violently disagree on the methods for reaching them.
 
2011-12-30 01:05:20 PM  

MFL: 3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.


The worst president in history already had two terms.
 
2011-12-30 01:07:08 PM  

spman: Democrats are composed of more than a dozen or so different ideologies ranging from self proclaimed Socialists and Communists .


There is no left wing in US Politics. So I don't know what you are typing about.
 
2011-12-30 01:14:30 PM  

MFL: 1. Romney is a 100 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

2. Gingrich is 1000 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

4. You guys are putting in the effort I give you that, but in reality you are just stroking yourselves


1: True.

2: False.

3: The president doesn't need to do that. From just the GOP debates themselves they giving enough rope to hang their own party.

4: And there goes the ability to take any of your statements seriously.
 
2011-12-30 01:19:14 PM  
So, I guess the bet is off. Damnit, I was already thinking of what I would spend your tear soaked money on.
 
2011-12-30 01:22:07 PM  
Presidential primaries can be stupid.

"This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress." --Obama adviser Gordon Fischer, on Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama
 
2011-12-30 01:28:42 PM  

GWLush: So, I guess the bet is off. Damnit, I was already thinking of what I would spend your tear soaked money on.


It's a troll's alt account. Best case scenario is that you get paid in Fark Fun Bux.
 
2011-12-30 01:29:32 PM  

spman: Democrats are composed of more than a dozen or so different ideologies ranging from self proclaimed Socialists and Communists all the way to blue dog Democrats, all of which have ideas that are radically different from each other.

Republicans are composed of at most, maybe four different ideologies, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, those keen on Jesus, and the libertarian types, and while they may have a few fundamental disagreements, they mostly agree on a lot of the same key principals.

You tell me who is more dysfunctional.


hands down the stupidest post in the history of fark.com...and you are competing with winterwhile's psuedo-haikus
 
2011-12-30 01:38:30 PM  

tcan: Otherwise Just Fine: The economist is a very expensive liberal magazine to subscribe to. I bought a subscription for every member of my family who went 'bagger.

It's a sneaky way to get information from a liberal viewpoint to people who don't want to be exposed to information. It actually helped immensely. The 'bagger relatives can have decent conversation with me about articles from the magazine, and we can talk about some things in a liberally biased factual way, which is nice.

But damned expensive.

There FIFY


Did you? Ten years ago, it was considered a center-right magazine. I don't think the magazine has changed. I think the Republicans have taken a very hard right turn off a cliff and persons such as yourself now think that the magazine is liberal because it isn't Fox News. Or you're just a goof who hasn't ever read it and just likes to type stuff.
 
2011-12-30 01:58:29 PM  

WizardofToast: MFL: 1. Romney is a 100 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

2. Gingrich is 1000 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

4. You guys are putting in the effort I give you that, but in reality you are just stroking yourselves

1: True.

2: False.

3: The president doesn't need to do that. From just the GOP debates themselves they giving enough rope to hang their own party.

4: And there goes the ability to take any of your statements seriously.


Other than the Romney "better president" thing - nice post.

/Romney is just as big a sociopath as every other republican.
//until the GOP moves radically back towards the center of American candidates none of their candidates should be in the white house.
 
2011-12-30 02:07:52 PM  

GWLush: spman: DGS: Kibbler: spman: Democrats are composed of more than a dozen or so different ideologies ranging from self proclaimed Socialists and Communists all the way to blue dog Democrats, all of which have ideas that are radically different from each other.

Republicans are composed of at most, maybe four different ideologies, social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, those keen on Jesus, and the libertarian types, and while they may have a few fundamental disagreements, they mostly agree on a lot of the same key principals.

You tell me who is more dysfunctional.

The Democratic Party is dysfunctional? Gasp!!! This comes as astonishing news to liberals! We thought everything was going well!

Oh, and if the Democratic Party contains "self proclaimed Socialists and Communists" then the GOP contains "self proclaimed white supremacists, birthers, secessionists, and homophobes."

This. +1

Except the white supremecist and kooks of that ilk are not Republicans and most do not self identify as such. In fact I remember a certain Fred Phelps who was pretty buddy buddy with Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and guys like David Duke switch their political affiliation all the time based on what convenient. The difference is that Democrats have no problem rubbing elbows with the far fringe portion of their party. You're not ever going to find a Republican bragging about being endorsed by Stormfront.

Most of Stormfront want Ron Paul as President. Last time I checked Ron Paul was running as a Republican.

Oh look what I found.

[cdn2.dailycaller.com image 500x375]

That is the founder of Stormfront and his son.

I agree though most of the racists don't say they are Republicans they say they are Tea Party Patriots.


That thing is a boy? I thought it was an ugly woman.
 
2011-12-30 02:16:19 PM  

Boxcutta: tcan: Otherwise Just Fine: The economist is a very expensive liberal magazine to subscribe to. I bought a subscription for every member of my family who went 'bagger.

It's a sneaky way to get information from a liberal viewpoint to people who don't want to be exposed to information. It actually helped immensely. The 'bagger relatives can have decent conversation with me about articles from the magazine, and we can talk about some things in a liberally biased factual way, which is nice.

But damned expensive.

There FIFY

Did you? Ten years ago, it was considered a center-right magazine. I don't think the magazine has changed. I think the Republicans have taken a very hard right turn off a cliff and persons such as yourself now think that the magazine is liberal because it isn't Fox News. Or you're just a goof who hasn't ever read it and just likes to type stuff.


Or, you're completely out of touch and haven't noticed that it has taken a hard left in the last ten years. The same could be said of Time and Newsweek. As someone once said " any organization (or publication) not specifically conservative will in time become liberal.
 
2011-12-30 02:28:17 PM  

Diogenes: I was going more for the "long view" than to establish equivalence. And I think it's important to distinguish between the current candidates and the party as a whole

(emphasis mine) A dysfunctional party will produce dysfunctional candidates. And there are plenty of reasons why some potentially more qualified/suited candidates are hanging back this turn.

Here's one of the parts I'm having a little trouble with. The other is the time scale.

In this election cycle's run-up, at the Republican debates, we've seen audiences--not just the candidates on stage, but statistically significant portions of hose people trusted enough to sit in the auditorium and watch--cheering the execution of innocent men, cheering the deaths of people without health insurance, and booing a soldier because he was gay. If they have any sort of moral compass, either they're reading it wrong or they have a very special compass that points reliably at the west pole. Or to borrow a bygone line, "they threw i ching ...out the window. They are now unanimous."

The points that I'm trying to make are:

First, it's not just the candidates. The collection of clown shoes on display are there because they have fairly broad support from the party. They are what the leaders among the Republicans consider the best and the brightest. There may be people that'd make better candidates among them (hell, there'd better be), but they are either busy elsewhere, overlooked, laying low for their own self-preservation, or being told to STFU while the adults* are talking.

The other line of thought is worse. To assume that the leaders of the Republicans have put this lot before us because they aren't their best and brightest, and that the presidential election doesn't matter this year, is to admit to yourself that not only is the Republican leadership hard-bitten, cynical, and interested in little more than gaming the system for their own benefit, but also that that the rank-and-file among the Republicans are so non-discerning and intent on cheering their own side that they'd applaud an undercooked potato (R-usset).

Second, if the Democrats between 1976 and 2000 showed "dysfunction," then what the Republicans are showing now is "bat-shiat bug-fark insanity." To find wharrgarbl this thick and chewy among the Democrats (and I mean those people who had crowds cheering them, not just individual moonbats), you're going to have to go back a lot farther than 1976.

* term used unironically, ironically.
 
2011-12-30 02:37:27 PM  

images.free-extras.com
you will now re-read the headline in Homer Simpson's voice

 
2011-12-30 02:55:25 PM  
Aww cretinbob, you destroyed my kittybrain
 
2011-12-30 03:27:26 PM  

tcan: The economist is a very expensive liberal magazine


And wow, here I thought we were going to have a decent discussion about the magazine without resorting to the derp.

Congratulations. You win the prize.
 
2011-12-30 03:52:37 PM  

DarwiOdrade: MFL: 1. Romney is a 100 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

2. Gingrich is 1000 times more accomplished in life than Barack Obama and would obviously make a better president.

3. The only hope the worst president in modern history has to get a second term is for him to deem his opponents unelectable.

4. You guys are putting in the effort I give you that, but in reality you are just stroking yourselves

LOL!

Just wondering...Who are you picking for the superbowl?


He is taking the Browns to the Super Bowl.
 
2011-12-30 04:52:48 PM  
The problem with the GOP is that they want to get rid of the welfare system...but still want the gov't checks. Someone at a Tea Party rally last yr made this accurate observation

If the GOP were truly fiscal conservative....they would be grooming Ron Paul as the candidate. Instead, they attack Paul, and push candidates that are basically no different on the issues than Obama, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, etc

The hilarity of this whole GOP campaign is that the one guy that is not like the other candidates gets attacked by BOTH the GOP and Democrats
 
2011-12-30 05:51:20 PM  
Any article with the premise that the Republican party has gone wrong since Reagan rather than with Reagan is bullshiat.
 
2011-12-30 06:25:41 PM  

tcan: Boxcutta: tcan: Otherwise Just Fine: The economist is a very expensive liberal magazine to subscribe to. I bought a subscription for every member of my family who went 'bagger.

It's a sneaky way to get information from a liberal viewpoint to people who don't want to be exposed to information. It actually helped immensely. The 'bagger relatives can have decent conversation with me about articles from the magazine, and we can talk about some things in a liberally biased factual way, which is nice.

But damned expensive.

There FIFY

Did you? Ten years ago, it was considered a center-right magazine. I don't think the magazine has changed. I think the Republicans have taken a very hard right turn off a cliff and persons such as yourself now think that the magazine is liberal because it isn't Fox News. Or you're just a goof who hasn't ever read it and just likes to type stuff.

Or, you're completely out of touch and haven't noticed that it has taken a hard left in the last ten years. The same could be said of Time and Newsweek. As someone once said " any organization (or publication) not specifically conservative will in time become liberal.


And obviously you have proof of The Economist taking a hard turn to the left correct?

/I'll wait
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report