YELLOL:

And there has never ever, as in NEVER EVER, been a Republican in the Ku Klux Klan. .

Look at the dumb
The way it craps for you
For it was all YELLOL

Lorelle: Democrat Party

DRINK!

intelligent comment below: What's with every single known troll coming out of the wood work this week?

It's an election year. Every idiot who thinks politics is for queers and gomers is busting out their totally awesome alt accounts (that you are not allowed to reference or anger).

Imagine a GaryPDX calling everyone comrade forever. That will be the next 5+ months. 12 if Romney wins.

Weaver95: Romney is being anointed as the GOP heir apparent. Limbaugh and the rest of the Republican commentariat are flogging the troops to whip up enthusiasm from the rank and file....I think they're afraid that Romney's lack of personality might be an issue down the road.


Not a chance. Romney is a joke candidate they know won't win because Obama hasn't actually failed at policy.

Romney is todays John Kerry. He will not be the Republican base who is anti-Mormon and birther among other traits.

Every time the party out of power sees a President campaign it's always "on tax payer dollars to move them around the country."

I'll admit, I hated it when Bush did it because Bush only won through cheating twice, and is a sniveling subservient-to-his-masters farkhole who should be taking orders at a liquor drive-through in Texas well into his 70's, but it is ridiculous.

intelligent comment below: Not a chance. Romney is a joke candidate they know won't win because Obama hasn't actually failed at policy.

Romney is todays John Kerry. He will not be the Republican base who is anti-Mormon and birther among other traits.


You're not new here and you're not Linux_Yes, so don't be daft.

The GOP base in short order ran through Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum, all as the savior. They'll be able to adapt to Romney just fine if it means Obama leaving next January.

Best line in the article:

There are scores of smaller, seemingly quotidian deals that are too boring to make the news

Translation: I couldn't find anything else, but I know my readers are too stupid to actually look, they'll just trust me when I pretend there's actually more to this than blatant historical distortion, misstatement of the "Buffett Rule" and some b/s about the pharmaceutical industry even I don't understand.

But he'd like you to think that it's the LIE-bruls who are lying...

BSABSVR: intelligent comment below: Not a chance. Romney is a joke candidate they know won't win because Obama hasn't actually failed at policy.

Romney is todays John Kerry. He will not be the Republican base who is anti-Mormon and birther among other traits.


You're not new here and you're not Linux_Yes, so don't be daft.

The GOP base in short order ran through Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum, all as the savior. They'll be able to adapt to Romney just fine if it means Obama leaving next January.

Romney is still screwed. If he doesn't fire up the base by turning the DERP up, he might get more moderate votes, but will lose the base. If he panders to the Teabaggers, he gets their vote, but loses the moderates.

God-is-a-Taco: Well, it is true that "both sides are bad", but I can't think of a situation where voting Republican would be the least harmful choice.
It's more of a "delay the inevitable" vote.

But, more disconcerning is what appears to be an ad for the current issue:
[www.weeklystandard.com image 145x190]

These guys just discovered internet memes? Tron guys? Seriously? TRON GUY?

is that Scumbag Steve at the bottom middle? Way to appeal to your target demo, Weekly Standard.

StinkyFiddlewinks: Every time the party out of power sees a President campaign it's always "on tax payer dollars to move them around the country."

I'll admit, I hated it when Bush did it because Bush only won through cheating twice, and is a sniveling subservient-to-his-masters farkhole who should be taking orders at a liquor drive-through in Texas well into his 70's, but it is ridiculous.

Like any self respecting liquor store owner would trust that hump around their booze. Why not get Laura to teach driver's ed while you're at it?

whidbey: God-is-a-Taco: Well, it is true that "both sides are bad"

No it actually isn't,. You're welcome to Google the list of accomplishments the Democratic party has achieved just in the past 4 years alone.

The Republican party is an outdated socially ignorant bunch of people living in the 1980s version of the 1950s.

They are actually a threat to social progress at this point.

The Democrats are typical politicians. They have plenty of their own issues, naturally, but compared to the Republicans, they're farking awesome.

We might actually make some real progress if the Republican party collapsed, and the position was filled by a liberal party, but this country has been pulled to the right for far too long for that to happen with any speed.

Frederick: The actual, functional differences between the parties are not as great as what supporters would like to believe. The talking point, and platform differences are clear -but what gets accomplished show minimal differences. Look at some of the more controversial legislation passed in the last 20 years and it is seldom partisan.

So you're saying that both sides are bad? Whoever shall I vote for?

_{/Trick question. I'm not eligible to vote.}

BSABSVR: intelligent comment below: What's with every single known troll coming out of the wood work this week?

It's an election year. Every idiot who thinks politics is for queers and gomers is busting out their totally awesome alt accounts (that you are not allowed to reference or anger).

Imagine a GaryPDX calling everyone comrade forever. That will be the next 5+ months. 12 if Romney wins.

Best part?

Better to be afraid of reality then have no farking grip on reality.

/Both are better then reality TV.

So the author Jay Cost is criticizing the Democratic party for not being a burden to America's wealth?
I don't get it.

slayer199: This was the best point of the article:

"And anyway, if the Democrats were really serious about hiking taxes on the wealthy, why didn't they do it when they had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress? Why wait until now, when there is no chance of passing anything like the Buffett Rule? "

Yes, why didn't they?

And they never, ever will. They will never, and I mean never, get nationalized healthcare. The Democrats will never, ever, never put serious regulations on Wall Street, They'll say it at every election though.

The Republicans are far worse. They had it ALL locked up - both sides of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They could have made abortion illegal, could have built a huge alligator filled moat between Mexico. Banned gay sex forever, made the Ten Commandments a part of the constitution, but they didn't. And they never will.

Both parties are working the ski poles people. If you want real change - blow em both up or get a third fourth fifth and sixth party.

This is actually Al Gore's fault- if he didn't mention Willie Horton during the 88 primaries, shiat wouldn't have gotten so outta hand.

//or Obama for not using his time machine to stop Gore

MyRandomName: You see, Conservatives don't go and hide and down vote articles they may disagree with. They don't fear opposing view points. Go to any website and you will see liberals flaming/down voting conservative point of views. You don't see that from the other side.

My god, you're not even an unabashed liar. O'Reilly shuts off the microphone of anyone who says anything he doesn't like. And conservatives spent 8 years under Bush claiming that anyone who disagreed was a traitor.

Peter von Nostrand: MaudlinMutantMollusk: FirstNationalBastard: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Ambivalence: If they're going to keep projecting, can they at least show somethign worth watching?

Hell, I'd prefer Plan 9 From Outer Space to this crap

/or even Xanadu

Why not Manos?

the Hands of Fate?

Cabin Boy?

Even a marathon session of the entire Air Bud franchise (yes, all 10 movies) would be better than this crap.

dookdookdook: Weekly Standard, "Democrats are afraid of reality"... I'm sure this will be a well-researched, fact-loaded article.

First paragraph: Attack on a presidential candidate for running a presidential campaign, strawman arguments...

Next few paragraphs: Colorful metaphors, more strawmen, zero actual content...

Rest of article: Skimming for anything that resembles facts or numbers or just anything that isn't gratuitous republican liberals-are-evil propaganda...nope, nothing.


Someone owes me 3 minutes of my life back.

I know, right? That "Hope and change" slogan only took .7 seconds for the same effect. This article is totally inefficient.

intelligent comment below: What's with every single known troll coming out of the wood work this week?

Not just that - there's a ridiculous amount of "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD" going on in this thread too.

IMDWalrus: intelligent comment below: What's with every single known troll coming out of the wood work this week?

Not just that - there's a ridiculous amount of "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD" going on in this thread too.

BOF SAIDS SAEM

So herp Derpublican.

fusillade762: intelligent comment below: What's with every single known troll coming out of the wood work this week?

If you notice they're conspicuously absent from the Birther threads. Like avoiding them has been part of their marching orders.

Chimperror and Noam Chimsky are all over those threads

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlXz9HhLkDU

Weakly (lack of) Standards says what?

[ohwaityoureserious]

RW projection, is there anything it can't do?

/Go to the RW media sites online like Freep et al and see for oneself in short order both the utter lack of reality there and the way any attempts to educate are purged from the collective memory and then you'll understand, at least partially, how the RW echo chamber works to keep the right misinformed, uninformed, disinformed, and basically not even lightly tethered to reality.

George_W_Hussein: slayer199: This was the best point of the article:

"And anyway, if the Democrats were really serious about hiking taxes on the wealthy, why didn't they do it when they had a filibuster-proof majority in Congress? Why wait until now, when there is no chance of passing anything like the Buffett Rule? "

Yes, why didn't they?

And they never, ever will. They will never, and I mean never, get nationalized healthcare. The Democrats will never, ever, never put serious regulations on Wall Street, They'll say it at every election though.

The Republicans are far worse. They had it ALL locked up - both sides of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. They could have made abortion illegal, could have built a huge alligator filled moat between Mexico. Banned gay sex forever, made the Ten Commandments a part of the constitution, but they didn't. And they never will.

Both parties are working the ski poles people. If you want real change - blow em both up or get a third fourth fifth and sixth party.

After Citzens United vs. FCC good luck with that. The two party system is not just entrenched. It's set in concrete.

coeyagi: Fun fact: The GOP votes unaminously, the Dems don't. This is why there are actual politicians, so they can occasionally vote apart from their party.

//that'll be 5 cents for the civics lesson, Jethro

This is what baffles me about politics in democracies, everywhere. Why would you vote for a guy who isn't going to represent your area - only what his superiors tell him to? I mean, sure, you might agree with him on a bunch of things regardless, but... Isn't the guy who's actually going to represent your area, always the better vote? It's just a weird thing.

I'm pretty left on a lot of things. But when I saw my local Rep vigorously bringing to the House the local concerns that were absolutely killing my town and area, I felt pretty good about him, even though he was pretty far off to the right - and I was happy he was my Rep.
/ that was several years go now, and I don't live there anymore
// and he's still the Rep for that area, I believe

BSABSVR: Sabyen91: Lorelle: BOTH parties have been lying for decades. The Democrat Party just happens to be the lesser of two evils.

The Democrat Party?

She meant DemonRAT party is the lesser of two evils.

How come Republican supporters don't even know how to spell the name of the Democrats properly???

The party is still a little stupid, as one would expect from any set of policies crafted by committee. They've gotten significantly better since the '90s, though, probably because as the GOP has closed ranks and excluded more and more people the Dems made the wise decision to sacrifice some talking points to capture the newly disowned centrist conservatives. So you hear little to no anti-gun bullshiat anymore, social program expansions are mixed with practical concerns, there are both hawks and doves int he party, etc.

I'm sure it won't last another decade, but for now I'm enjoying (D) largely indicating a mostly sane and generally reasonable person of average intelligence, rather than either letter meaning you are a blithering idiot like 15 years back.

//Though in the same time frame the GOP has gotten worse for the corresponding reasons, so the overall dialogue hasn't really gotten better.

MyRandomName: You see, Conservatives don't go and hide and down vote articles they may disagree with. They don't fear opposing view points. Go to any website and you will see liberals flaming/down voting conservative point of views. You don't see that from the other side. Hell on fark any time a conservative viewpoint goes green half the comments are crying about freeper friday. Fark liberals also have a penchant for advertising their ignore lists as if anyone cares. It's actually quite amusing.


Thank you for so eloquently summarizing for me the very reasons I love Fark so much. From slight exaggeration about another with opposing viewpoints, to outright lying to try and make your case, to actually believing those lies and trying to convince others that they're truths... THAT is some truly special derp right there.

And the funny thing to me is that a lot in here either 1) take you seriously to where they think they can convincingly argue with you to try and make you see another viewpoint, OR 2) Get so upset by obvious trolling that they put you on ignore.

You're fun to read. You put on a good show. It's too bad others can't see this. You are quite the entertaining crap-stirrer. Imagine the possibilities if someone of your talents wanted to have a realistic, honest debate...

Why do these conservative articles always carry the childish tone of "I know you are but what am I" type strawman arguments? Villifying those you disagree with is not a legitemate form of debate.

sure, most politicians are cowards, but we all already knew that

Fark.com, the not news site is turning into the mainstream media. It isn't "fair and balanced" to give crazy ideas and clearly wrong articles "equal time". Giving this absolutely groundless and extreme piece publicity lends it credence it simply doesn't have. Why is American media obsessed with giving birthers, creationists, climate change deniers, and other fringey borderline mental illness a fair shot at spewing insanity everywhere. Stop. Just stop. Insane people operating on "faith" don't need equal time. They need meds...maybe an intervention or something...not a platform.

jrw8778: Fark.com, the not news site is turning into the mainstream media. It isn't "fair and balanced" to give crazy ideas and clearly wrong articles "equal time". Giving this absolutely groundless and extreme piece publicity lends it credence it simply doesn't have. Why is American media obsessed with giving birthers, creationists, climate change deniers, and other fringey borderline mental illness a fair shot at spewing insanity everywhere. Stop. Just stop. Insane people operating on "faith" don't need equal time. They need meds...maybe an intervention or something...not a platform.

Let me interpret for those of you with lesser intelligence the democrats::

"You don't believe in what i believe in, so you shouldn't be allowed to speak."

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

jedihirsch: AirForceVet: Thanks djkutch for responding to slayer199's claim about the Democrats having a filibuster-proof Senate. Not much they could do in of all about 14 weeks. I was stunned DADT was replied myself with the current House makeup, but I guess common sense prevailed.

Actually DADT was repealed by a federal court that declared it unconstitutional in Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. From a legal standpoint the congressional bill had no effect and will have no effect unless the Supreme Court overturns Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. So DADT was actually repealed by a Republican group with support from the Libertarian and Constitutionalists elements of the Tea Party. In fact the Obama administration tried to get the courts to Overturn Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America because as long as it stands from a legal standpoint their bill is nothing more than ceremonial and Obama wants the credit and doesn't want a republican group to have it

The GOP also wants to help the poor, elderly, and homeless. True story!

Oceanfront property in Nevada for sale.

dookdookdook: MyRandomName: Conservatives do know what liberals think, at least better than liberals do conservatives. An actual liberal researcher found that. Have you not heard? Here you go.

All I ever needed to know about how conservatives think I learned from this.

tl;dr version: They believe whatever they're told to believe - whether by parents, religious leaders, politicians, talk radio hosts, or other authority figures they perceive as legitimate - and will viciously defend their Opinion Suppliers' beliefs against any attacks from heathens, liberals, or objective reality.

That paper you linked to was fascinating. Thanks. This is why I love you Farkers....