tenpoundsofcheese: let's see if the losers at 0Ws learn from this.

you can get a lot more done at the ballot box than by attempting to blow up bridges and throwing molotov cocktails at the police.


Deflection! 10 points for slytherin!

Kibbler: I read in the WSJ that this Mourdock guy has said "there's too much bipartisanship" in Congress. I don't remember the exact words but he said something to the effect of, we have honest American conservative principles, and we have European-style socialism, and one of those viewpoints has to win.

Here's the closest quote I've found: "The time for being collegial is past. It's time for confrontation." Because, you know, the unprecedented use of the cloture we've seen in the last six years (and rampant expansion of it in the last four) is evidence of cooperation between the parties.

Tumunga: Edsel: cram_hole: This moron that beat him thinks compromise is a dirty word.

Every teabagger thinks that. It's why they are going to be the death of our democracy.

Compromise for democrats = Agree with our libtard view, or GTFO

It seems pretty silly to say that, given that Mourdock has explicitly stated that he thinks there should be less compromise in Washington.

Serious Black: hasty ambush: 36 years in office is too long regardless of party affiliation. I am happy to see the power of the incumbency weakened. If you guys really want to see real change you need to vote out those guys who have been in office for 12 years or longer otherwise you will continue to get business as usual.

Why is being in office for a long time inherently bad? If legislators aren't responding to the concerns of their constituents, then those constituents should vote them out. If they are responding to those concerns, then why should those voters be punished by not being able to vote for somebody they think is doing a good job of representing them?

Being in office a long time isn't inherently bad, but I'm not sure having them in the halls of power is any less dangerous than having them on the road.

Tumunga: Cythraul: Mugato: Who would voluntarily call himself "Dick"?

Republicans love dicks. Seriously. Think about all the well known conservatives named 'Dick.'

Dick Armey
Dick Cheney
'Richard' Nixon

And so on, and so on.

coont Clinton
coont Obama
coont Johnson
coont Kennedy
coont Carter

This is a fun game, let's keep going.

No one could be this stupid, could they? I mean, this is just a reprehensible level of retardation; it'd be a miracle to find an actual human typed this out.

Tumunga: Edsel: cram_hole: This moron that beat him thinks compromise is a dirty word.

Every teabagger thinks that. It's why they are going to be the death of our democracy.

Compromise for democrats = Agree with our libtard view, or GTFO

That's cute, you actually think that Democrats are liberal

In this election, we've replaced Dick Lugar with a Pixar character. Let's see if voters can tell the difference.

Tumunga: Edsel: cram_hole: This moron that beat him thinks compromise is a dirty word.

Every teabagger thinks that. It's why they are going to be the death of our democracy.

Compromise for democrats = Agree with our libtard view, or GTFO

"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy." - Speaker John Boehner's thoughts on the debt ceiling deal that produced the Budget Control Act

theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: and that is why he was voted out.

he is nothing more than a RINO.

You know who else required ideological purity of party members?

Oh wait, I know this one...Stalin? Castro?

Shiat, those are libtard heroes. You wanted me to say something like Hitler, who's another libtard hero, but you farks won't claim him publicly. I lose this round.

Snarfangel: Serious Black: hasty ambush: 36 years in office is too long regardless of party affiliation. I am happy to see the power of the incumbency weakened. If you guys really want to see real change you need to vote out those guys who have been in office for 12 years or longer otherwise you will continue to get business as usual.

Why is being in office for a long time inherently bad? If legislators aren't responding to the concerns of their constituents, then those constituents should vote them out. If they are responding to those concerns, then why should those voters be punished by not being able to vote for somebody they think is doing a good job of representing them?

Being in office a long time isn't inherently bad, but I'm not sure having them in the halls of power is any less dangerous than having them on the road.

Bah, I wish I could go back and edit. I'm not sure having octogenarians in the halls of power is any less dangerous than having them on the road.

sprawl15: hasty ambush: If you guys really want to see real change you need to vote out those guys who have been in office for 12 years or longer otherwise you will continue to get business as usual.

Since the problem is with how people get elected and not so much the specific people that are elected, one wonders how kicking out incumbents can possibly improve anything.


It takes seniority out of the hands of people silly enough to consider "fire everybody" a real solution, so there's always that.

Serious Black: hasty ambush: 36 years in office is too long regardless of party affiliation. I am happy to see the power of the incumbency weakened. If you guys really want to see real change you need to vote out those guys who have been in office for 12 years or longer otherwise you will continue to get business as usual.

Why is being in office for a long time inherently bad? If legislators aren't responding to the concerns of their constituents, then those constituents should vote them out. If they are responding to those concerns, then why should those voters be punished by not being able to vote for somebody they think is doing a good job of representing them?

Ta-Dahhh!!

Cythraul: Hmmm... I'm thinking 'troll.' What do y'all think?

I'm thinking it's such a poor attempt you shouldn't even quote him.

Tumunga: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: and that is why he was voted out.

he is nothing more than a RINO.

You know who else required ideological purity of party members?

Oh wait, I know this one...Stalin? Castro?

Shiat, those are libtard heroes. You wanted me to say something like Hitler, who's another libtard hero, but you farks won't claim him publicly. I lose this round.

Wow. You are amazingly stupid. You don't even know the differences between liberal and conservative. How did you even manage to turn a computer on and sign onto Fark?

Tumunga: I don't need to follow politics when I can get all the info I need from Fox News!

Going through life as a ill-informed partisan will just make you bitter and resentful towards successful people.

OneTimed: Tumunga: Edsel: cram_hole: This moron that beat him thinks compromise is a dirty word.

Every teabagger thinks that. It's why they are going to be the death of our democracy.

Compromise for democrats = Agree with our libtard view, or GTFO

That's cute, you actually think that Democrats are liberal

And that they don't fold like a card table every time Republicans play hardball.

Snarfangel: Vodka Zombie: I_C_Weener: 80 year old sore loser. Next time live in the state you represent Mr. Lugar. See you in church this Sunday. Oh wait, that membership is just for show and you show up there once every 6 years.

You sound bitter.

I thought he sounded happy that Lugar was out.

I think he sounds like his usual troll self. But you'll notice this line of reasoning didn't apply to Danny Coats who was living in N. Carolina before being elected enthusiasticly by these same people in 2010.

Cythraul: Hmmm... I'm thinking 'troll.' What do y'all think?

duh.jpg

Eighty years old...

Did he lose because teabaggers are popular, or because his voting base died?

Cythraul: Tumunga: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: and that is why he was voted out.

he is nothing more than a RINO.

You know who else required ideological purity of party members?

Oh wait, I know this one...Stalin? Castro?

Shiat, those are libtard heroes. You wanted me to say something like Hitler, who's another libtard hero, but you farks won't claim him publicly. I lose this round.

Hmmm... I'm thinking 'troll.' What do y'all think?

I'm thinking bot. No human could be that stupid and still manage to breathe or operate a computer.

tenpoundsofcheese: let's see if the losers at 0Ws learn from this.

you can get a lot more done at the ballot box than by attempting to blow up bridges and throwing molotov cocktails at the police.

I dunno. They could try blowing up the ballot box.

Serious Black: Tumunga: Edsel: cram_hole: This moron that beat him thinks compromise is a dirty word.

Every teabagger thinks that. It's why they are going to be the death of our democracy.

Compromise for democrats = Agree with our libtard view, or GTFO

"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy." - Speaker John Boehner's thoughts on the debt ceiling deal that produced the Budget Control Act

And remember that time when the deficit reduction bi-partisan super committee got together and the Democrats agreed to Republican demands to cut spending and then asked about small increases in revenue by bumping up taxes on the wealthy and the Republicans shiat their pants? good times, good times.

I_C_Weener: Carth: I_C_Weener: 80 year old sore loser. Next time live in the state you represent Mr. Lugar. See you in church this Sunday. Oh wait, that membership is just for show and you show up there once every 6 years.

He hasn't lived in the state in about 40 years. Why does it matter all of a sudden?

No one brought it to light until the Sec of State was convicted of voter fraud for address issues. It was kept secret.

So now all of his votes were wrong?

Tumunga: Serious Black: hasty ambush: 36 years in office is too long regardless of party affiliation. I am happy to see the power of the incumbency weakened. If you guys really want to see real change you need to vote out those guys who have been in office for 12 years or longer otherwise you will continue to get business as usual.

Why is being in office for a long time inherently bad? If legislators aren't responding to the concerns of their constituents, then those constituents should vote them out. If they are responding to those concerns, then why should those voters be punished by not being able to vote for somebody they think is doing a good job of representing them?

Ta-Dahhh!!

I'm not disputing that the voters clearly thought Lugar was not representing them well. What I'm disputing is the claim that he was not representing them well purely because he was a six-term Senator. That is facially not true.

theknuckler_33: Serious Black: Tumunga: Edsel: cram_hole: This moron that beat him thinks compromise is a dirty word.

Every teabagger thinks that. It's why they are going to be the death of our democracy.

Compromise for democrats = Agree with our libtard view, or GTFO

"When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the White House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy." - Speaker John Boehner's thoughts on the debt ceiling deal that produced the Budget Control Act

And remember that time when the deficit reduction bi-partisan super committee got together and the Democrats agreed to Republican demands to cut spending and then asked about small increases in revenue by bumping up taxes on the wealthy and the Republicans shiat their pants? good times, good times.

Yup. And there's this goodie from last night/this morning:

"I have a mindset that says bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view. I've said many times through this campaign that one of the things I hope to do is to help build a conservative majority in the United States Senate and continue to help the House build a Republican majority and have a Republican White House and then bipartisanship becomes having Democrats come our way. So that's what we're working towards and I think in the days ahead, Mr. Lugar will join our effort." - Richard Mourdock on his goals for the federal government

Dr Dreidel: He should run as a Democrat.

He should campaign for Joe Donnelly. It's a little late to run

Tumunga: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: and that is why he was voted out.

he is nothing more than a RINO.

You know who else required ideological purity of party members?

Oh wait, I know this one...Stalin? Castro?

Shiat, those are libtard heroes. You wanted me to say something like Hitler, who's another libtard hero, but you farks won't claim him publicly. I lose this round.

Oh, no worries. You lost at "libtard".

Cythraul: Tumunga: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: and that is why he was voted out.

he is nothing more than a RINO.

You know who else required ideological purity of party members?

Oh wait, I know this one...Stalin? Castro?

Shiat, those are libtard heroes. You wanted me to say something like Hitler, who's another libtard hero, but you farks won't claim him publicly. I lose this round.

Hmmm... I'm thinking 'troll.' What do y'all think?

You'd think that the "You know who else..." meme was so ubiquitous at this point that even a troll would let it slide as the joke it was obviously meant to be.

By the looks of it, I don't see his loss as some inexplicable thing or proof that the tea party is any more powerful than other interest groups.

His party felt he no longer had their best interests in mind and, for his final act, he proves them right by throwing a tantrum like a spoiled child.

Kibbler: hasty ambush: 36 years in office is too long regardless of party affiliation. I am happy to see the power of the incumbency weakened. If you guys really want to see real change you need to vote out those guys who have been in office for 12 years or longer otherwise you will continue to get business as usual.

This is one of those viewpoints that sounds like common sense until you examine it.

1. In what other field would you say that you need to turn over the expertise and leadership on a regular basis? Surgeons? Nuclear plant safety inspectors? Airline pilots?
2. What is the evidence that regular, massive influxes of legislative freshmen have helped? Take your favorite principle--let's say it's deficit reduction--and show me the evidence that election cycles that brought in lots of new blood resulted in reduced deficits.
3. "Business as usual" is something of a loaded phrase. It's not entirely invalid, but balanced against it is a phrase like "unpredictable lunging from one policy to the next."
4. The problem is by no means limited to the legislators themselves, whether they're veterans or newbies. The core of the problem is two entrenched parties that have written "rules" about how Congress works, rules that have no basis in the constitution, or even in law. They're just "rules" that the parties came up with to protect their own interests and keep other parties out. Add on to this an entrenched unelected bureaucracy, also looking after its own interests. Now you inject a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears, fire-breathing ideologues who roar into DC, pounding their fists and shouting, "THIS time, there's going to be CHANGE, THIS time, we MEAN it."

Uh huh.

HEY, YOU, GET THE FARK OUT OF HERE WITH YOUR INTELLIGENT AND WELL-THOUGHT OUT RESPONSE!
/grunt
//jk

Interviewed this morning, Mourdock says "Bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view"

I_C_Weener: Next time live in the state you represent Mr. Lugar.

Is that normal for any Congressperson? Pretty sure they all live near DC most of the time. That's where their job is.

Lost Thought 00: Interviewed this morning, Mourdock says "Bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view"

Did he really say this? If so, he's an asshole of monumental proportions.

Lugar's big sin? He ONLY voted the party line 88% of the time. Obviously he's in bed with that noted socialist Obama.

MFK: Lost Thought 00: Interviewed this morning, Mourdock says "Bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view"

Did he really say this? If so, he's an asshole of monumental proportions.

Well, he won, so he probably thinks the world is his and everyone in Washington will work with him. He's going to be in for a huge surprise if he wins the seat. LOL!

Good job TP! You are not strict enough. You should purify the party more. Try harder next time.

MFK: Lost Thought 00: Interviewed this morning, Mourdock says "Bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view"

Did he really say this? If so, he's an asshole of monumental proportions.

Yep

He's repeating it all over the talk shows, so it's something of a campaign slogan for him.

Tumunga: theknuckler_33: tenpoundsofcheese: and that is why he was voted out.

he is nothing more than a RINO.

You know who else required ideological purity of party members?

Oh wait, I know this one...Stalin? Castro?

Shiat, those are libtard heroes.

You forgot the other hero of the left: Mao.

Kibbler: hasty ambush: 36 years in office is too long regardless of party affiliation. I am happy to see the power of the incumbency weakened. If you guys really want to see real change you need to vote out those guys who have been in office for 12 years or longer otherwise you will continue to get business as usual.

This is one of those viewpoints that sounds like common sense until you examine it.

1. In what other field would you say that you need to turn over the expertise and leadership on a regular basis? Surgeons? Nuclear plant safety inspectors? Airline pilots?
2. What is the evidence that regular, massive influxes of legislative freshmen have helped? Take your favorite principle--let's say it's deficit reduction--and show me the evidence that election cycles that brought in lots of new blood resulted in reduced deficits.
3. "Business as usual" is something of a loaded phrase. It's not entirely invalid, but balanced against it is a phrase like "unpredictable lunging from one policy to the next."
4. The problem is by no means limited to the legislators themselves, whether they're veterans or newbies. The core of the problem is two entrenched parties that have written "rules" about how Congress works, rules that have no basis in the constitution, or even in law. They're just "rules" that the parties came up with to protect their own interests and keep other parties out. Add on to this an entrenched unelected bureaucracy, also looking after its own interests. Now you inject a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears, fire-breathing ideologues who roar into DC, pounding their fists and shouting, "THIS time, there's going to be CHANGE, THIS time, we MEAN it."

Uh huh.

At some point even airline pilots et get too old or are stuck doing things a ceratin wayausthey have always done it that way.
Senator Lugar was first elected to office in 1976 back when Carter was elected President. He has not really had to live with the rules and laws he has helped imposed on the rest of us since then Congressman DIngle is even worse. He has been in office since Ike was President. What do they really know what is going on with real world anymore?

They like us to think their job is harder, more complex and requires more experience than is actually needed because they are responible for creating the overly complex system to begin with. What they do is not nuclear power plant inspection or rocket science. On the whole our best and brightest are not serving in congress-regardless of party (the comments about Guam capsizing , "We have to vote for it to find out what is in it" , "It's easy for me to go to Washington and, frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have" etc proves my point).

I would also get rid of the senority system in congress. Stupid idea that time served equates to leadership ability. It only means the poltician pander well to enough to keep gettng re-elected and with committee chairmanship he/she can do even more pandering.


How well throwing the bastards out be better? Can it do any worse? To fully work my idea would require term limits . Senators limited to two terms or a Congressman limited to 4. No single person could hold more than 12 years combined Federal elected office It would give them less time to be corrupted. Figure they are pretty idealistic when first elected then are beaten down over time by the system and corrupted by the power. You simply reduce their exposure.

If you were not constantly concerned about pandering to interests you could easily fix the budget, social security and MEDICARE which are not really that complex. You and I could probably come with with a workable plan for all of it in a couple of days if we limited our concerns to the interests to not getting re-elected and did only what the constitution said we could do.

Vodka Zombie: Carth: I_C_Weener: 80 year old sore loser. Next time live in the state you represent Mr. Lugar. See you in church this Sunday. Oh wait, that membership is just for show and you show up there once every 6 years.

He hasn't lived in the state in about 40 years. Why does it matter all of a sudden?

because that's what they are telling him to be outraged about.

It certainly isn't outrageous in Arizona where Hovaround Retirees move in as snowbirds for 3 months a year but get to cast their elderly fear vote against messicans and homos just as they been warned about.

All aboard the GOP crazy train!