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.

(The New York Times)   Think Todd Akin is an aberration? Check out some of the know-nothing crackpots running House committees and you'll see he's not. If there were room for multiple tags, sad, obvious, dumbass, sick and asinine would join Scary   (opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 447
    More: Scary, Todd Akin, House committees  
•       •       •

22186 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Aug 2012 at 4:05 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-25 01:03:48 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: TsukasaK: Heresiarch: There's a major problem with this mentality (and it's variant, BSABV{R|D}). Barring some major society-level changes, there must be a government in place.

So are you unaware that it is possible to vote for someone who isn't a member of one of two political parties, or are you always this haughty?

Voting for a guy who will only ever get 5% of the vote because he is a crackpot is the same thing as not voting.


Additionally, voting for Ron Paul or Gary Johnson isn't "voting for someone else" since both of them are Republicans and both ran for the Republican nomination.
 
2012-08-25 01:05:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Voting for a guy who will only ever get 5% of the vote because he is a crackpot is the same thing as not voting.


You'd be hard pressed to find more of a cracked pot than the robot running on the R ticket right now. Nice advance dismissal, BTW.

And no it bloody well isn't. Voting is to choose you want in office, not to prevent someone else from getting in.
 
2012-08-25 01:07:40 PM  
Like the rep that thought an island would tip over? Link

/that's different because he's a democrat
 
2012-08-25 01:13:57 PM  

TsukasaK: And no it bloody well isn't. Voting is to choose you want in office, not to prevent someone else from getting in.


You vote for the option most desirable to you among the set of options that actually have some plausible chance of winning. Anything else, including these above-it-all "I ain't votin' for the lesser evil!" votes, is the equivalent of not voting at all. You might as well just go write in your mom's name at that point; it'll do about as much good.
 
2012-08-25 01:15:15 PM  

skipjack: Like the rep that thought an island would tip over? Link

/that's different because he's a democrat


No, that's different because he's the ONLY example at least three different people in this thread can come up with and his idiotic comment is two years old. I assume he's kept his mouth shut since then.

Don't you wish you could say the same about Bachmann?
 
2012-08-25 01:23:44 PM  
But don't expect the reality chorus to grow. For if intelligence were contagious, his party would be giving out vaccines for it.

I can't really improve upon that statement, so I'll just leave it here.
 
2012-08-25 01:24:01 PM  
Do NY Times opinion writers even read the shiat they write? I mean no one else does.

/DNRTFA
 
2012-08-25 01:24:33 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skipjack: Like the rep that thought an island would tip over? Link

/that's different because he's a democrat

No, that's different because he's the ONLY example at least three different people in this thread can come up with and his idiotic comment is two years old. I assume he's kept his mouth shut since then.

Don't you wish you could say the same about Bachmann?


I haven't looked all that hard. There is a lot of crazy in the house.

But you've proven my point for me..thanks.

/it's always different when it's a democrat...except that it's not 
//i don't want bachmann to shut up....she's to much fun
 
2012-08-25 01:25:41 PM  

Biological Ali: You vote for the option most desirable to you among the set of options that actually have some plausible chance of winning.


And we'll continue to have sh*tty options as long as this self fulfilling prophesy is perpetuated.
 
2012-08-25 01:28:55 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skipjack: Like the rep that thought an island would tip over? Link

/that's different because he's a democrat

No, that's different because he's the ONLY example at least three different people in this thread can come up with and his idiotic comment is two years old. I assume he's kept his mouth shut since then.

Don't you wish you could say the same about Bachmann?


Not to mention the "island tipping over" guy isn't a voting member. (see Representation of Territories)
 
2012-08-25 01:29:23 PM  

vygramul: 15% of Americans think abortion should be banned in all circumstances.


If you list off cases (serious health risk to the mother, strong chance of serious birth defect, pregancy from rape, an unmarried woman not wanting to marry the father, a married woman who thinks she has enough kids, or a low income mother who can't afford the child), it's about 9% (GSS 2000-2010) of the US who won't accept ANY of them as exceptions to a ban on abortion. On the flip side, about 36% are fine with all of those reasons being legally acceptable.

vygramul: 40% of Americans are Republicans. I'll leave it to you to decide how significant a faction it is in the Republican Party.


Among Strong Republicans, it's about 18% no-exceptions, compared to about 6% for Democrats or Democrat-leaning.
For the "no restrictions" crowd, 21% Strong Republicans, versus about 40-45% for Democrats or Democrat-leaning.

Though the GOP may be polarizing harder on this (smaller N makes it hard to tell, but the trend in the strong GOP seems to be rising "no exceptions" and falling "no restrictions" over time), the GOP factions seems surprisingly closer to split than I'd expect. Contrariwise, the "no exceptions" crowd seems to consider the question much more important than the "no restrictions" crowd do. I suspect this reflects the Old School Republicans (moneycons) trading pandering on this issue to the religious right (theocons) in exchange for pandering on fiscal issues. 

In short, the one-fifth minority of the Strong GOP that are utterly opposed to abortion are likely a lot louder about it than the one-fifth who are just fine with having it legal.
 
2012-08-25 01:30:25 PM  

Speaker2Animals: And McKinney was chairwoman of what committee? How much power did she have?


She's also been ridiculed on Fark so many times even Canucks like me recall 'shooping her craziness.
 
2012-08-25 01:32:32 PM  

TsukasaK: This lesser of two evils problem will continue as long as people continue voting for sh*theads. If you vote for a republican or a democrat, you are part of the problem. Full stop.


You know who's a 'part of the problem' then? The vast majority of the American voting public.
 
2012-08-25 01:33:59 PM  

vygramul: texref: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: texref: Stupidity isn't limited to just the Republican party -- Democrat Hank Johnson thinks that if we place too many troops on Guam the island might tip over

We need to get rid of the stupid from both parties ... it's going to take a while.

One stupid comment from two years ago doesn't even balance Steve King's stupidity just this year.

You're not going to solve your problem until you admit you have one.

One stupid comment? He thinks an ISLAND might TIP OVER?!?!?

This is a congressman.

I'm not defending King, Bachmann, or any of the other crazy-a$$ Republicans ... we need to clean house on both sides. Crazy isn't limited to a left or right-wing ideology ... crazy is crazy.

I could name a few Democrats who need to have their political careers ended for colossal stupidity or nuttery. But the problem with Republicans is that they've purged many of their non-stupid members who were unwilling to be beholden to the retarded wing and replaced them with wingnuts at a scale the Democrats are simply unwilling and unable to muster. The ideologues are in control of the GOP. The Democratic Party has its ideologues but they're largely kept in check.


This is pretty much how I see it. I would have voted for McCain had he been the 2000 GOP nominee. That, of course, was back when he was all 'mavericky' and stuff. There was no way I was voting for 'W', with Rove/Cheney and that despicable crowd pulling his strings. Of course, any candidate that can't even win his own state doesn't much deserve to win the Prez election, and Gore was a particularly weak candidate. Once W got in we enjoyed a full on eight years of slippery slope derpitude from the right. That, of course, became a full tsunami in 2010 and the GOP is now drowning in it's own delicious derp. If you really want to see the frightening and farcical level of this, look at all the bright red State Houses around this great land of ours. Look at NC, where I'm currently a few miles from the capital right now. Those geniuses passed a law that prohibits looking at real science regarding sea level rise. God must be impressed by these omniscient rascals. I thought that was his turf.
 
2012-08-25 01:34:13 PM  

TsukasaK: And we'll continue to have sh*tty options as long as this self fulfilling prophesy is perpetuated.


1.) Post on an internet board how both sides are bad
2.) ...
3.) PROFIT!
 
2012-08-25 01:35:53 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: TsukasaK: And we'll continue to have sh*tty options as long as this self fulfilling prophesy is perpetuated.

1.) Post on an internet board how both sides are bad
2.) ...
3.) PROFIT!


1) Imply that both sides aren't bad
2) Mock any suggestion that something different should be done
3) ....
4) INSANITY! (Or what was it when you do the same thing over and over and expect different results..?)
 
2012-08-25 01:37:10 PM  

skipjack: I haven't looked all that hard.


Way to stick to your gun.
 
2012-08-25 01:43:20 PM  

TsukasaK: 2) Mock any suggestion that something different should be done


Because posting on the internet about how both sides are bad will actually get something done.
 
2012-08-25 01:43:22 PM  

TsukasaK: Biological Ali: You vote for the option most desirable to you among the set of options that actually have some plausible chance of winning.

And we'll continue to have sh*tty options as long as this self fulfilling prophesy is perpetuated.


It's really not that no one thinks the third parties can win that holds them back. It's the fact that they're full of whiny kids who grew up to be whiny adults and think that if the candidate doesn't agree with them 100% of the time then he's a RINO/DINO/No True Libertarian. They spend so much time in-fighting about what it means to be a member of their party that they never pull their heads out of their ass and develop fundraising networks or ground operations or any of the various things that are necessary to get on the ballot in enough states to be politically relevant, much less actually get elected.
 
2012-08-25 01:45:00 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Because posting on the internet about how both sides are bad will actually get something done.


This is a politics board. Opinions are posted here, not necesarily things that lead to action offline.

Is this a new concept for you?
 
2012-08-25 01:45:41 PM  

actualhuman: It's the fact that they're full of whiny kids


Would you stop shiatting on third parties long enough to explain, or cite, or substantiate in any way, shape, or form what you're talking about?

Hint: One example doesn't cut it.
 
2012-08-25 01:46:37 PM  

actualhuman: It's really not that no one thinks the third parties can win that holds them back.


Third parties can win. Just ask Jesse Ventura. But it requires work, resources, and elbow grease, and having a charismatic celebrity candidate can't hurt either.
 
2012-08-25 01:47:11 PM  

mod3072: But don't expect the reality chorus to grow. For if intelligence were contagious, his party would be giving out vaccines for it.

I can't really improve upon that statement, so I'll just leave it here.


The cult of "Kill them all and let god sort it out"
 
2012-08-25 01:47:40 PM  
I mean for farks sake there are two different national Green parties. I think I'm still registered as a Green in fact but despite the fact that the Maine Green Independent Party was the first GP founded in the US I've never been given the opportunity to vote for a Green for any office but Governor or President. So what's the god damned point? A Green executive can't accomplish most of his agenda with out cooperation from the legislature which is going to be filled with people who either hate everything he stands for and some other people who think that he stole "their" votes.
 
2012-08-25 01:47:40 PM  

TsukasaK: This is a politics board. Opinions are posted here, not necesarily things that lead to action offline.


So both sides are bad and you should feel bad about voting for them, so... what else are you doing to fix the problem?
 
2012-08-25 01:48:59 PM  

Biological Ali: TsukasaK: And no it bloody well isn't. Voting is to choose you want in office, not to prevent someone else from getting in.

You vote for the option most desirable to you among the set of options that actually have some plausible chance of winning. Anything else, including these above-it-all "I ain't votin' for the lesser evil!" votes, is the equivalent of not voting at all. You might as well just go write in your mom's name at that point; it'll do about as much good.


Question - by Nov. 1, 1984, it was a matter of metaphysical certitude that Ronald Reagan could not possibly be defeated. Does that mean that anyone who voted for any candidate other than Reagan - say, for instance, Walter Mondale - was essentially "not voting?"
 
2012-08-25 01:49:37 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: so... what else are you doing to fix the problem?


I'm attempting to set up an arm of the Modern Whig party in my city. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in this state is a republifascist backward hick.

Now what are you doing to fix the problem?
 
2012-08-25 01:50:21 PM  

TsukasaK: actualhuman: It's the fact that they're full of whiny kids

Would you stop shiatting on third parties long enough to explain, or cite, or substantiate in any way, shape, or form what you're talking about?

Hint: One example doesn't cut it.


Show me any third party which runs candidates for any legislative body in enough districts to actually have some power when they get elected and I'll take them seriously. Otherwise they're just sitting around sucking each others' dicks.
 
2012-08-25 01:51:05 PM  

actualhuman: Show me any third party which runs candidates for any legislative body in enough districts to actually have some power when they get elected and I'll take them seriously.


Except you didn't say that, you said "full of whiny kids" and about 20 other insults.

Are you going to admit that you were lying now?
 
2012-08-25 01:53:53 PM  

TsukasaK: actualhuman: Show me any third party which runs candidates for any legislative body in enough districts to actually have some power when they get elected and I'll take them seriously.

Except you didn't say that, you said "full of whiny kids" and about 20 other insults.

Are you going to admit that you were lying now?


You haven't exactly posted any data to back up your argument either, bud. Who are you voting for this election? One of the other R's running for President?
 
2012-08-25 01:55:38 PM  
Can we just start a Moderates for America Party or something?
 
2012-08-25 01:55:43 PM  

TsukasaK: actualhuman: Show me any third party which runs candidates for any legislative body in enough districts to actually have some power when they get elected and I'll take them seriously.

Except you didn't say that, you said "full of whiny kids" and about 20 other insults.

Are you going to admit that you were lying now?


Show me those twenty other insults. Or admit you're lying. HAHA I win!

/Seriously though dude, you're only reinforcing my beliefe that third party-ers are children who can't deal with anyone disagreeing with them.
 
2012-08-25 01:56:20 PM  

Cpl.D: wademh: But the morality of abortion is not about sexual mores even if some would wield it that way.
It is a matter of competitive ethics. Different people assign different levels of value to the life of the fetus and the life of the mother, and different value to the cost to the mother. I consider the ...

Ah, no. It is not a matter of competitive ethics. It's a matter of whether or not a majority may use its weight to legislate its religious claptrap against the will of others. You want to be christian and say christians shouldn't get abortions? Okay, fine. Their holy book doesn't even say that, but whatever. But you want to be a christian and outlaw abortions based on your magic book? That's where I draw the line. Religions should not have the ability to legislate what they think their holy book says and force everyone else, same religion or not, to adhere to it. Religious freedom is one thing, religious enforcement is a whole different can of nuts.


THIS.

What I find more fascinating is that these same politicians that want to impose their religious condemn Sharia Law for the exact same thing. Epitome of hypocrites.

/I'm looking at you Michelle Bachman
 
2012-08-25 01:57:58 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: actualhuman: It's really not that no one thinks the third parties can win that holds them back.

Third parties can win. Just ask Jesse Ventura. But it requires work, resources, and elbow grease, and having a charismatic celebrity candidate can't hurt either.


Yeah, and that's really my issue with them. If you're able to put together a state-wide or national campaign and actually have some political relevance by all means do it. But if you can't find more then 3-5% of your state who agrees with you it's time to come up with a new plan, because shouting at clouds doesn't do anyone any good.
 
2012-08-25 01:59:26 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: You haven't exactly posted any data to back up your argument either, bud.


The only argument i've made in this thread is that one should reflect, long and hard, before voting for more of the same, and then being surprised 2-4 years later when they act like every other person to be a member of the same party.

Look at the past hundred years, but specifically the past couple decades. If that isn't enough proof for you, I don't know what is.

As to the man I'm voting for: https://tjohara.com/

I understand that it's mostly symbolic, this being a state that hasn't voted for anything other than a Republican in over 100 years (so is my vote wasted if I don't vote for a Republican?), but I'll be damned if I'm going to show any kind of support for the farkery going on in Washington today.
 
2012-08-25 02:01:13 PM  

skipjack: Like the rep that thought an island would tip over? Link

/that's different because he's a democrat


No it's different becuase he isn't praised for his ignorance, nor will espousing his ignorance make him more popular with most democrats. Repubs just can't seem to grasp that dems know their are idiots in both parties, but we usually don't rally around our dumbshiats and put them in charge.

remember "We will greated as heroes" cheney?
Also the dem dumbshiats havent left tens of thousands dead for no coherent reason. Maybe if the repubs could act like they learned something from the bush years they wouldn't be so repulsive now.
 
2012-08-25 02:01:14 PM  

TsukasaK: The only argument i've made in this thread is that one should reflect, long and hard, before voting for more of the same


I did. I didn't vote Republican last time around; and I didn't get more of the same. I got the repeal of a 20 year old bigoted policy instituted by a Democrat. I got the biggest overhaul of healthcare in 50 years. I got the death of our #1 enemy. And guess what? All of that was done by Democrats without the help of ANY Republicans.

So you can kindly take your "more of the same, both sides are equal" bullsh*t and shove it so far up your ass all you can see is larynx.
 
2012-08-25 02:03:11 PM  

skipjack: Like the rep that thought an island would tip over? Link

/that's different because he's a democrat


Like I said earlier, let us know when Hank Johnson is put on the Science Commitee,holds enormous political power,writes party platform or introduces legislation against island tipping. Until them, you're comparing one stupid congressman to a whole party filled with stupid.
 
2012-08-25 02:05:00 PM  

BMulligan: Question - by Nov. 1, 1984, it was a matter of metaphysical certitude that Ronald Reagan could not possibly be defeated. Does that mean that anyone who voted for any candidate other than Reagan - say, for instance, Walter Mondale - was essentially "not voting?"


If it's a matter of "metaphysical certitude" (though I suspect that may be something of an overstatement) that your vote will make literally no difference, you might as well do something more productive with your time.
 
2012-08-25 02:06:35 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: And guess what?


Worthy benefits, and admittedly better than the last guy (but that's not saying much, my farking DOG could do better than the last guy).

But what else did you get?

* Guantanamo still open
* Killing American citizens without trial
* Warrantless wiretapping
* Bending over backwards for the copyright nazis

Let's not pretend that Democrats aren't without their problems, either. You've got far right cryptofascism and center right corporatism. What if I think both of those choice suck?
 
2012-08-25 02:07:00 PM  

TsukasaK: Biological Ali: You vote for the option most desirable to you among the set of options that actually have some plausible chance of winning.

And we'll continue to have sh*tty options as long as this self fulfilling prophesy is perpetuated.


Who exactly is "we"?
 
2012-08-25 02:08:22 PM  

TsukasaK: cameroncrazy1984: You haven't exactly posted any data to back up your argument either, bud.

The only argument i've made in this thread is that one should reflect, long and hard, before voting for more of the same, and then being surprised 2-4 years later when they act like every other person to be a member of the same party.

Look at the past hundred years, but specifically the past couple decades. If that isn't enough proof for you, I don't know what is.


Proof that both sides are the same? Only in the sense that Republicans have managed to exclude some many positions that people who used to be Republicans are now considered Democrats. This is just the way American politics work - in a parliamentary democracy each of the major parties would have splintered into two or three separate parties. Instead we have a system with two parties comprised of different factions. Conservative Democrats bare little resemblance to Progressive Democrats but they tend to come from states where being anything close to Progressive is going to loose you the seat to a Neo-con. Introducing the progressive (or a sane Conservative) on a third party ballot line (assuming there's a third party which can get a ballot line in your state) turns that race into a cluster-fark. There are people who are always going to vote Republican (just like there are people who will always vote Democratic) out of some sort of tribal allegiance so you'll most likely end up with the candidate least like your third party candidate winning. If you actually want to shift the debate you have to introduce your alternate candidate in the primaries... and then get people to actually show up to the primaries and know what they're voting for in the first place.
 
2012-08-25 02:08:38 PM  

Cpl.D: Fark! Even the history and science channels now have shows about bigfoot, magic healing crystals, and jesus history shows.

Apparently it's okay to be stupid and ignorant because that way nobody will mistake you for an elitist.


Profits at both History and DIscovery are way up from just a few years ago. I understand that people just want to make money, but it's pretty heartbreaking that swampbillies and "ancient aliens" is the way to do it, especially at expense of something reasonably educational.

TV is probably the most accurate measure of our culture. It merely reflects who we are as a society. I guess art really does imitate life.
 
2012-08-25 02:10:53 PM  

TsukasaK: * Guantanamo still open


Republicans blocked funding for moving the prisoners to the US.

TsukasaK: * Killing American citizens without trial


He was killed while riding in a car with 4 other terrorists. Additionally, we kill American citizens without trial here in the US all the time.

TsukasaK: * Warrantless wiretapping


Actually ended under Bush. There are new oversight measures in place requiring National Security letters at the very least, and FISA still requires a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER a tap begins.

TsukasaK: * Bending over backwards for the copyright nazis


I don't even know what you mean by this. SOPA and PIPA were killed. 

Got any more bullsh*t debunked talking points are are you done here?
 
2012-08-25 02:12:58 PM  

Shadowknight: Sorry, I just woke up. My grammatical mistakes are pretty glaring on second read through. Preview is for pussies.


Preview? Max Power doesn't preview! You just strap in and feel the G's.
 
2012-08-25 02:16:02 PM  
...and that whole rant ignores the fact that a three person race makes it easy to play the 'My opponent is so bad even the people who agree with most of what he says don't want him to be elected' line. Or the 'My friend is trying to subvert the will of the people by splintering off votes from my campaign - and if that isn't his intention why won't he agree to this mutual "no-spoiler" agreement I've drawn up?' line.
 
2012-08-25 02:18:41 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Republicans blocked funding for moving the prisoners to the US.


Didn't he have a veto-proof majority at the time this happened?

cameroncrazy1984: He was killed while riding in a car with 4 other terrorists.


What's your point?

cameroncrazy1984: Actually ended under Bush. There are new oversight measures in place requiring National Security letters at the very least


A NSL is not a warrant. Warrantless wiretapping therefore still happens. 3 days is a lot of time.

cameroncrazy1984: I don't even know what you mean by this. SOPA and PIPA were killed.


After massive outcry and most of the popular web sites in the USA went dark for a day. In a sane world, that kind of idiocy would have been killed on the spot.

As an example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/obama-blind-treaty_n_1695363. html
 
2012-08-25 02:19:04 PM  

Franko: People deserve the governments they elect.


What about the people who didn't elect them? You know, the majority.
 
2012-08-25 02:29:11 PM  

TsukasaK: Didn't he have a veto-proof majority at the time this happened?


Really? Really really?

I guess the Senate allows proxies in your world too.
 
2012-08-25 02:29:48 PM  

actualhuman: Really? Really really?


That was phrased as a question for a reason. Did he not?
 
Displayed 50 of 447 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report