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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Mitch McConnell bravely ran away. When reporters reared their ugly heads, he bravely turned his tail and fled. Bravest of the brave, Mitch McConnell   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 385
    More: Amusing, Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, John Barrasso, Jon Kyl, romney  
•       •       •

18658 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2012 at 6:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-19 04:56:04 PM
i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.
 
2012-09-19 04:58:53 PM
That is the fastest-retreating turtle I have ever seen.
 
2012-09-19 05:06:04 PM
you'd think he'd just hide in his shell.
 
2012-09-19 05:09:24 PM

FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.


Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.
 
2012-09-19 05:11:03 PM
Senate Mutant Ninny Turtle
 
2012-09-19 05:20:34 PM

RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.


oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.
 
2012-09-19 06:34:19 PM
Actually he DID stay and answer all their questions, and called Romney a "Farking moron, an utterly pathetic asshole" and other rants for close to two minutes.

Unfortunately, all the cameras and microphones were inadvertently turned off, but resumed filming just as he left the podium and mumbled something about a factory in China.
 
2012-09-19 06:41:57 PM

kronicfeld: That is the fastest-retreating turtle I have ever seen.


RexTalionis: Don't get cocky.


*snrt*
 
2012-09-19 06:57:50 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Senate Mutant Ninny Turtle


lulz
 
2012-09-19 06:59:49 PM

RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.


True, but at this point any counterattack feels like the Battle of the Bulge. I think something huge would have to happen for Obama to suddenly lose support. I don't think even winning the debates will cut it for Romney. The Libya issue could have and should have been his chance to pivot and put Obama on the offensive, but he couldn't even get that right.
 
2012-09-19 07:00:37 PM
"First of all I'm not going to get critical - your question implies there's some really big flaw in the way he's running the campaign," 

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-09-19 07:00:54 PM

FlashHarry: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.


It's like watching a Rolls-Royce Silver Cloud II and a vintage Ferrari head towards a railroad crossing simultaneously while a Lear jet crashes onto both of them just before the 1:40 from Scranton arrives.
 
2012-09-19 07:01:35 PM

Mentat: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

True, but at this point any counterattack feels like the Battle of the Bulge. I think something huge would have to happen for Obama to suddenly lose support. I don't think even winning the debates will cut it for Romney. The Libya issue could have and should have been his chance to pivot and put Obama on the offensive, but he couldn't even get that right.


We don't tempt fate. That's bad.
 
2012-09-19 07:02:42 PM
*snort* squared.

Brave now, eh haters?

Way to diminish half of America.

The truth untold is that the real number they despise, ala Rom-nay recent-lay, is even higher...

We are but plebs, plebes, and proles to the GOP, aka Republican Party, and we serve only to lube their wheels, well, surprise, surprise, surprise, you dislodge your own wheels!

*snort* quad-rubed.
 
2012-09-19 07:02:46 PM
He retreated to his shell. The guy is only a shell of his old self.
 
2012-09-19 07:03:25 PM
soccercaffe.com
 
2012-09-19 07:03:30 PM
I'm I don't know how many posts in so far and no Holy Grail reference yet?

Farkers, I am disappoint.

/I told them we've already got one.
 
2012-09-19 07:03:33 PM
fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.


/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?
 
2012-09-19 07:04:50 PM
The clownshow has hit a minor bump in the road:

imageshack.us
 
2012-09-19 07:04:54 PM
And there was much rejoicing.
 
2012-09-19 07:05:18 PM
This GOP presidential campaign does start to make a lot more sense if you imagine it's a big Monty Python skit.

GOP leadership actively dodging questions about their candidate less than 2 months from the election. Good Lord.
 
2012-09-19 07:05:21 PM
www.lifeaftercollege.org
 
2012-09-19 07:05:39 PM

WTFDYW: He retreated to his shell. The guy is only a shell of his old self.


*woob-woob-woob*

*cue Dr. Zoidberg*
 
2012-09-19 07:06:28 PM
And Smitty, that was the first thing i thought of too

/he did not!
 
2012-09-19 07:07:34 PM
img338.imageshack.us

It's only a model
 
2012-09-19 07:07:40 PM
 
2012-09-19 07:08:01 PM
I get the feeling that the Republican leadership is embarrassed not because of the insult to 47% of Americans, but rather because one of their cabal got caught telling the truth as they see it.
 
2012-09-19 07:08:11 PM

fusillade762: "First of all I'm not going to get critical - your question implies there's some really big flaw in the way he's running the campaign,"


"Hey Kyl, doing anything fun this weekend?"
"Look, I'm not going to get specific - your question implies there's something horrible, disgusting and illegal I'll be doing from Saturday afternoon to Sunday morning."
 
2012-09-19 07:08:50 PM

fusillade762: "First of all I'm not going to get critical - your question implies there's some really big flaw in the way he's running the campaign," 

[t2.gstatic.com image 243x207]


No, he's right, there is not one really big flaw,

What there is are several big flaws and more each day but not one really big one.
 
2012-09-19 07:09:29 PM
This new learning amazes me, Sir Romney. Explain again how damage control may be employed to prevent a drop in the polls...

www-staff.lboro.ac.uk
 
2012-09-19 07:09:30 PM
Mitch runs away from a lot of things Link 
 
2012-09-19 07:10:01 PM
He soiled his armor!
 
2012-09-19 07:12:59 PM

OriginalGamer: This new learning amazes me, Sir Romney. Explain again how damage control may be employed to prevent a drop in the polls...

[www-staff.lboro.ac.uk image 850x613]


Someone with skillz needs to shop Romney's face into that picture.
 
2012-09-19 07:13:40 PM

Mentat: True, but at this point any counterattack feels like the Battle of the Bulge. I think something huge would have to happen for Obama to suddenly lose support. I don't think even winning the debates will cut it for Romney. The Libya issue could have and should have been his chance to pivot and put Obama on the offensive, but he couldn't even get that right.


If the will of the American people meant jack, that would account for something. Some of us remember Election Day of 2000 and 2004. The election-stealing industry has laid low just long enough be wiped clean from the gnat-like collective American attention span and the time is right for a comeback.
 
2012-09-19 07:14:15 PM

Solid Muldoon: And there was much rejoicing.


yayyy
 
2012-09-19 07:14:51 PM
A family member is a high ranking associate in the Republican party - I can hardly wait for Thanksgiving lol. It seems that Romney may give me as much as Sarah Palin did to mock him with. They are the gift that keeps on giving anymore...

Excuse any typos because the touchpad does not like my bandaged thumb...damned barb wire.
 
2012-09-19 07:15:18 PM

jayhawk88: This GOP presidential campaign does start to make a lot more sense if you imagine it's a big Monty Python skit.

GOP leadership actively dodging questions about their candidate less than 2 months from the election. Good Lord.


"And now, I'd like to introduce our guest this evening: Mitt "Two Sheds" Romney!"
 
2012-09-19 07:16:13 PM
i thought i was the only one getting the monty reference
i see i was wrong
good on with the show
 
2012-09-19 07:16:13 PM
Girion47
2012-09-19 07:03:33 PM

fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.

/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?


NO
 
2012-09-19 07:16:29 PM
Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.
 
2012-09-19 07:17:22 PM
Meanwhile, Castle Anthrax has just lit its grail shaped beacon...
 
2012-09-19 07:18:17 PM
Instead of a turtle, my dad refers to Mitch as a terrapin, 'cause he's slimy.
 
2012-09-19 07:18:50 PM
Since I paid income tax since I could work, I'm still waiting for Romney to give me a reason to vote for him. I'm part of the 53%, you Mormon bastard!
 
2012-09-19 07:19:04 PM

check republic: Girion47
2012-09-19 07:03:33 PM

fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.

/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?


NO


Yeah, sorry - you're talking Congress now, and a Nancy will cost you a Boner, And two teabaggers to be named at a later date.
 
2012-09-19 07:19:18 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*


media4.dropshots.com
 
2012-09-19 07:19:19 PM
Senator turtle-man is in my opinion a traitor to the nation for his deliberate (and proudly publicly pre-announced) attempts to monkey-wrnech the US government since inauguration day, just to make things bad enough to make Obama a one-termer. He should DIAF and his cronies with him. There's loyal opposition, then there's farking with the US economy on a macro scale just to sway an election your way. Fark him with a rake. He's more un-American than most terrorists.
 
2012-09-19 07:19:54 PM

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Mentat: True, but at this point any counterattack feels like the Battle of the Bulge. I think something huge would have to happen for Obama to suddenly lose support. I don't think even winning the debates will cut it for Romney. The Libya issue could have and should have been his chance to pivot and put Obama on the offensive, but he couldn't even get that right.

If the will of the American people meant jack, that would account for something. Some of us remember Election Day of 2000 and 2004. The election-stealing industry has laid low just long enough be wiped clean from the gnat-like collective American attention span and the time is right for a comeback.


I have never forgotten...
 
2012-09-19 07:20:05 PM

jso2897: check republic: Girion47
2012-09-19 07:03:33 PM

fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.

/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?


NO

Yeah, sorry - you're talking Congress now, and a Nancy will cost you a Boner, And two teabaggers to be named at a later date.


May I suggest Tom McClintock as one of them?

/please?
 
2012-09-19 07:20:37 PM
Hmmm.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.
 
2012-09-19 07:21:01 PM

Indubitably: Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Mentat: True, but at this point any counterattack feels like the Battle of the Bulge. I think something huge would have to happen for Obama to suddenly lose support. I don't think even winning the debates will cut it for Romney. The Libya issue could have and should have been his chance to pivot and put Obama on the offensive, but he couldn't even get that right.

If the will of the American people meant jack, that would account for something. Some of us remember Election Day of 2000 and 2004. The election-stealing industry has laid low just long enough be wiped clean from the gnat-like collective American attention span and the time is right for a comeback.

I have never forgotten...


...anything. Elephant Memory.
 
2012-09-19 07:21:04 PM
Do you hear the sound, from far across the fields we know? Do you hear the crash of the anvil, as the hopes of the Republican party are forged into

longboxgraveyard.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-19 07:21:53 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*


i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-19 07:22:24 PM

FlashHarry: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.


Normally, I would agree with you, but Obama/Biden have been so good at The Game that he'd have a real hard time flubbing themselves, especially with such a huge image problem looming over Mitt.

lh3.googleusercontent.com

/also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?
 
2012-09-19 07:22:34 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.


What does RmoneyMoney (his rap name) bring to the table?

What are the specifics of his plan to aid America in these troubled times?

What is RmoneyMoneys position on key issues?
 
2012-09-19 07:24:26 PM

FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.


I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.
 
2012-09-19 07:24:46 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.


Progressive?

shewhoprecedesmen.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-19 07:24:47 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.


Condescending rhetoric is only convincing when you are winning. You are not winning.
Maybe you could spare thirty seconds to list all the good things about your guy.
Well, OK, that won't work, either. Actually, I don't know what the f**k you guys are gonna do. No chance at the White House, looks like you're losing ground in the Senate - and won't win what you need in the house.
It might be time for the GOP to shed it's skin and grow a new one. Again.
This radical right shiat didn't even fly in the late fifties - no way in hell it will fly now. America is sick of this reactionary shiat.
 
2012-09-19 07:25:39 PM
i wish more usa citizens were as concerned and aware as you Farkers are. i know too many people in 'real life' that have their heads so far up their arse they would still vote romney if he raped a babby live on TV.
 
2012-09-19 07:25:40 PM

Raharu: What is RmoneyMoneys position on key issues?


ECONOMY: Tax cuts for the rich

FOREIGN POLICY: Tax cuts for the rich

HEALTHCARE: Tax cuts for the rich

25.media.tumblr.com

"Et CE-tera... Et CE-tera... Et CE-tera!"
 
Slu
2012-09-19 07:25:47 PM

Coelacanth: Mitch runs away from a lot of things Link


What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging. Hell, I can't say I wouldn't take any avenue possible to avoid getting drafted to fight in the Middle East. Man up and admit you are a pussy, Mitch. Some of us would be proud of you for it.
 
2012-09-19 07:26:14 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: jso2897: check republic: Girion47
2012-09-19 07:03:33 PM

fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.

/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?


NO

Yeah, sorry - you're talking Congress now, and a Nancy will cost you a Boner, And two teabaggers to be named at a later date.

May I suggest Tom McClintock as one of them?

/please?


Whatever your lil' ol' heart desires, honey-child.
 
2012-09-19 07:26:34 PM
Heaven or Hell, was the journey cold that gave you eyes of steel?
Shelter behind, painting your mind and playing joker
Too frightening to listen to a stranger
Too beautiful to put your pride in danger
You're waiting for someone to understand you
But you've got demons in your closet (You've got demons in your closet)
And you're screaming out to stop it (And you're screaming out to stop it)
Saying life's begun to cheat you
Friends are out to beat you
Grab on to what you can scramble for!
 
2012-09-19 07:26:49 PM
Boy, I bet that the leadership is happy as heck that they decided to sideline Huntsman and Johnson now...
 
2012-09-19 07:26:50 PM

WTP 2: i thought i was the only one getting the monty reference
i see i was wrong
good on with the show


Nope, and now I have a medley of Spamalot stuck in my head, mostly the Finale.
 
2012-09-19 07:26:50 PM

Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.


You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists
//you should see our official opposition up here
///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left
 
2012-09-19 07:26:56 PM

jso2897: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

Condescending rhetoric is only convincing when you are winning. You are not winning.
Maybe you could spare thirty seconds to list all the good things about your guy.
Well, OK, that won't work, either. Actually, I don't know what the f**k you guys are gonna do. No chance at the White House, looks like you're losing ground in the Senate - and won't win what you need in the house.
It might be time for the GOP to shed it's skin and grow a new one. Again.
This radical right shiat didn't even fly in the late fifties - no way in hell it will fly now. America is sick of this reactionary shiat.


Agreed.
 
2012-09-19 07:26:59 PM

Raharu: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

What does RmoneyMoney (his rap name) bring to the table?

What are the specifics of his plan to aid America in these troubled times?

What is RmoneyMoneys position on key issues?


tax cuts
 
2012-09-19 07:27:11 PM

SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?


That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.
 
2012-09-19 07:27:51 PM
Of course, the Republicans (the leadership minus Romney) will blame this all on him. It's not THEM nor their shiatty platform/ideas/philosophy, it's Romney. Romney ruined it (if he does lose, and I'm not going to tempt fate and predict that, because I suck at predicting election results).

It's not their gay-hating, woman-hating, black and brown people-hating, poor people-hating positions that are wrong. It's Romney. Nothing Romney (or Akin) has said publicly (or on hidden camera) differs from the way the majority of the leadership actually feels, they (Romney and Akin) are just saying them out loud, for the rest of us to make fun of.

The Republican Party knows how their candidates feel, because they've been saying this shiat amongst themselves all along. Romney and Akin are just supposed to keep it on the down-low. Everybody knows Republicans have nothing but contempt for poor (ie, black) people. Everybody knows. We're all just supposed to pretend that isn't what they believe, because to do otherwise would be, well, rude.

I guarantee you a majority of the old, white Republican voters (like my mother) agree with everything Romney said. They don't think there's anything wrong with it. Romney used "code words" the way Republicans always do. When Romney says "people who don't pay income taxes," they all know he means "black welfare queens and illegals from Mexico." They know he wasn't referring to God-fearing, Social Security-collecting grandma, even though she's one of the 47%.
 
2012-09-19 07:28:00 PM

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: Raharu: What is RmoneyMoneys position on key issues?

ECONOMY: Tax cuts for the rich

FOREIGN POLICY: Tax cuts for the rich

HEALTHCARE: Tax cuts for the rich

[25.media.tumblr.com image 250x208]

"Et CE-tera... Et CE-tera... Et CE-tera!"


Ni-CE.
 
2012-09-19 07:28:31 PM

ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.


It's a legitimate story about the Republicans.
 
2012-09-19 07:28:37 PM

dahmers love zombie: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

[i.imgur.com image 590x360]


i39.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-19 07:28:53 PM

Slu: Coelacanth: Mitch runs away from a lot of things Link

What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging. Hell, I can't say I wouldn't take any avenue possible to avoid getting drafted to fight in the Middle East. Man up and admit you are a pussy, Mitch. Some of us would be proud of you for it.


If said draft dodger is a pacifist, who doesn't want to send other people's kids off to die in wars, then he is morally consistent. If he is a warhawk, he's a hypocrite.
 
2012-09-19 07:29:44 PM

Kuta: Heaven or Hell, was the journey cold that gave you eyes of steel?
Shelter behind, painting your mind and playing joker
Too frightening to listen to a stranger
Too beautiful to put your pride in danger
You're waiting for someone to understand you
But you've got demons in your closet (You've got demons in your closet)
And you're screaming out to stop it (And you're screaming out to stop it)
Saying life's begun to cheat you
Friends are out to beat you
Grab on to what you can scramble for!


Awesome poem. +1.
 
2012-09-19 07:30:14 PM
I honestly thought Romney was going to make a much more challenging opponent for Obama then he has been proving to be. Yes, it's not over until it's over but his weakness is endemic. It's not something to be easily overcome with a pithy slogan.

I thought Romney would be challenging for Obama because he would point to his record in MA and portray himself as a sane moderate alternative. Little did I know that his campaign would decide to portray him as a full-on conservative instead. What fools - you don't win general elections in this age without being able to appeal outside of your base to the "other" side. The republican base was always going to vote for Romney no matter what... So he really had to swing only so many voters away from Obama to win.

Instead he abandons those hopes and tries to portray himself as a deep conservative, and gets a supposed conservative to run with him. I think the root problem is that Romney does not actually HAVE an ideology of his own. He has ambition, he has a sense of entitlement - but he has shown every sign of actually having no significant ideology of his own besides achieving his own personal ambitions. I thought his lack of ideology would be a strength for him as it would allow him to pretend to be what he needed to be. I failed to realize that having absolutely NO actual philosophical ideology of his own would instead be a weakness because 1. he'd be just as likely to pretend to be something OTHER than what he needed to be to win the general election and 2. his insincerity would be impossible to hide considering the depth and breadth of his utter lack of his own philosophy.
 
2012-09-19 07:30:30 PM
Another bullshiat political thread with a stupid troll headline greenlit on the main page.

Welcome to 21st century Fark
 
2012-09-19 07:30:47 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

It's a legitimate story about the Republicans.


NSS? (*love*)
 
2012-09-19 07:31:42 PM

RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.


THIS! The GOP's rat-farking, vote suppression, race baiting, and hurricane of disinformation will increase exponentially as the election approaches.

TFA: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) excused himself in the middle of the availability. The rest - Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Sens. John Thune (R-SD), Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Barrasso (R-WY) - made no mention of Romney or the race in their comments and instead lamented Senate dysfunctionality and attacked Democratic policies.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
 
2012-09-19 07:31:50 PM

Animatronik: Another bullshiat political thread with a stupid troll headline greenlit on the main page.

Welcome to 21st century Fark


What are you so afraid of?

Discourse?
 
2012-09-19 07:32:03 PM

Animatronik: Another bullshiat political thread with a stupid troll headline greenlit on the main page.

Welcome to 21st century Fark


When you can't argue the facts, complain about the messenger.
 
2012-09-19 07:32:36 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

It's a legitimate story about the Republicans.


There are legitimate stories about Republicans on the Politics tab, too.

What I'm lamenting is the contamination of the main page by Fark trolls.
 
Slu
2012-09-19 07:32:45 PM

jso2897: Slu: Coelacanth: Mitch runs away from a lot of things Link

What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging. Hell, I can't say I wouldn't take any avenue possible to avoid getting drafted to fight in the Middle East. Man up and admit you are a pussy, Mitch. Some of us would be proud of you for it.

If said draft dodger is a pacifist, who doesn't want to send other people's kids off to die in wars, then he is morally consistent. If he is a warhawk, he's a hypocrite.


Touche. A pussy hypocrite.
 
2012-09-19 07:33:05 PM

atomic-age: Raharu: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

What does RmoneyMoney (his rap name) bring to the table?

What are the specifics of his plan to aid America in these troubled times?

What is RmoneyMoneys position on key issues?

tax cuts


Don't forget deregulation, and more unneeded defense spending.
 
2012-09-19 07:33:11 PM

hubiestubert: Boy, I bet that the leadership is happy as heck that they decided to sideline Huntsman and Johnson now...


And the even saner Buddy Rœmer, who they didn′t even dare let into the debates.
 
2012-09-19 07:33:32 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*


Animatronik: Another bullshiat political thread with a stupid troll headline greenlit on the main page.


The FARK Independent(tm) response:

cache.ohinternet.com

Now's the time to start buying stock in Pfizer.
 
2012-09-19 07:33:50 PM
0.tqn.com
theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com
s3.amazonaws.com 

/hot
 
2012-09-19 07:35:00 PM

Animatronik: Another bullshiat political thread with a stupid troll headline greenlit on the main page.

Welcome to 21st century Fark


Is a headline a troll if its true? You're saying it didn't happen?

And I'll take 21st century Fark over 1950s McCarthy era Fark.
 
2012-09-19 07:35:14 PM

ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.


As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.
 
2012-09-19 07:35:22 PM

Girion47: fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.


/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?


No. She's actually slicker and more effective than Harry Reid, although I suppose that's setting the bar rather low...
 
2012-09-19 07:36:08 PM

OriginalGamer: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

Progressive?

[shewhoprecedesmen.files.wordpress.com image 500x277]


To be honest, my issues with Romney come my Conservatism. Romney isn't a Moderate, he's not Conservative. He's just an amorphous blob of corporatist goo that doesn't even have ballast chambers to control his buoyancy.

That's the thing about Romney, is that folks from both the Left and the Right can find things to really worry them. Especially with his tenth or twelfth "reboot" of his campaign. There is nothing really there to support. No hard policy. A lot of equivocation, and a LOT of bloviating when he should really be concentrating on the issues at hand, as opposed to trying to keep "score."

Romney isn't a solid candidate, and hasn't been since the start. There isn't really anything to support. No policies, nothing but vague rhetoric, and a commitment to whoever is in the room with him, save on the issue of his own taxes, and a pledge to keep folks from looking too close at the taxes of those closest to him.

That should worry any good Conservative. Couple it with his asinine statements on foreign policy, and an abandonment of principles of governing, and you have things that should worry everyone. Right or Left or Centerist, Romney is a candidate only for those folks who want "their" side to win, over the good of the nation, and our children's futures. This isn't about teams, it's about recognizing a man who isn't fit for office, and who never should have gotten on the slate in the first place...
 
2012-09-19 07:36:19 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.


Animatronik: Another bullshiat political thread with a stupid troll headline greenlit on the main page.

Welcome to 21st century Fark


i37.photobucket.com

You can tell it's getting desperate when the typical GOPtards aren't even trying to spin things anymore. They're just down to pouting and whining about their victim complexes now.
 
2012-09-19 07:36:34 PM
"Well, Mitch, what's your number TWO priority?"
 
2012-09-19 07:36:49 PM

ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.


I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?
 
2012-09-19 07:38:30 PM

hubiestubert: Boy, I bet that the leadership is happy as heck that they decided to sideline Huntsman and Johnson now...


Have you heard Rinse Pubis talk? He doesn't even live on the same planet that Huntsman does...
 
2012-09-19 07:38:49 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Animatronik: Another bullshiat political thread with a stupid troll headline greenlit on the main page.

The FARK Independent(tm) response:

[cache.ohinternet.com image 450x571]

Now's the time to start buying stock in Pfizer.


No, actually, start buying American produced only. Produced here? Sure, I'll buy it. Not? Not.

Yes, I understand what this means to our economy in the short-term. However, I think we'd all be surprised how fast America's economy might hum if we brought ALL our resources back home for a bit...
 
2012-09-19 07:38:57 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: "Well, Mitch, what's your number TWO priority?"


He will make DAMN SURE Obama does NOT become a three-term president.
 
2012-09-19 07:39:49 PM
Is there a particular reason Republicans consider Nancy Pelosi to be "corrupt" or are they just butthurt over the Speaker having been a strong progressive woman?
 
2012-09-19 07:40:09 PM

Indubitably: No, actually, start buying American produced only. Produced here? Sure, I'll buy it. Not? Not.


Pssst. Pfizer makes Preperation H
 
2012-09-19 07:40:24 PM

jso2897: check republic: Girion47
2012-09-19 07:03:33 PM

fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.

/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?


NO

Yeah, sorry - you're talking Congress now, and a Nancy will cost you a Boner, And two teabaggers to be named at a later date.


Perhaps a Cantor?
 
2012-09-19 07:40:30 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.


Yeah, the Republicans took a shiat in the backseat, and they refuse to help clean it up.
 
2012-09-19 07:41:32 PM

codergirl42: hubiestubert: Boy, I bet that the leadership is happy as heck that they decided to sideline Huntsman and Johnson now...

Have you heard Rinse Pubis talk? He doesn't even live on the same planet that Huntsman does...


He reminds me of an 80's movie character, but I can't put my finger on who just yet. Any ideas?
 
2012-09-19 07:42:04 PM
img253.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-19 07:42:08 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Indubitably: No, actually, start buying American produced only. Produced here? Sure, I'll buy it. Not? Not.

Pssst. Pfizer makes Preperation H


Don't need it, you?
 
2012-09-19 07:42:18 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-19 07:42:20 PM

OriginalGamer: This new learning amazes me, Sir Romney. Explain again how damage control may be employed to prevent a drop in the polls...

[www-staff.lboro.ac.uk image 850x613]


And that my liege is how we know that supply side economics work.
 
2012-09-19 07:43:22 PM

forgotmydamnusername: No. She's actually slicker and more effective than Harry Reid, although I suppose that's setting the bar rather low...


If Pelosi needed to herd Blue Dogs until she got 60% of the House in order to pass anything, you'd be complaining about how ineffective she was too.

Given the 60% requirement, zero margin for error and the out-sized egos in his caucus, Reid did a pretty good job getting stuff through.
 
2012-09-19 07:44:11 PM

ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?


I'm honestly not sure, but I'd be willing to bet that '10 was fairly quiet and '08 was filled with Sarah Palin wackiness.

/MaverickMaverickMaverickMaverick
 
2012-09-19 07:46:09 PM

jso2897: Slu: What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging.


farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-19 07:46:58 PM
Next time Mitch, you are outta here.
 
2012-09-19 07:47:34 PM

Aexia: Is there a particular reason Republicans consider Nancy Pelosi to be "corrupt" or are they just butthurt over the Speaker having been a strong progressive woman?


She is not a Republican. That is all the reason they needed to begin full-throatedly, histrionically vilifying her starting the very minute she was elected House Speaker. Didn't matter who it was, her or someone else; whichever non-Republican is named Speaker or minority leader is going to be the most corrupt, batshiat-insane socialist lib who ever nazied.
 
2012-09-19 07:48:46 PM
conelrad.com
 
2012-09-19 07:49:17 PM

BuckTurgidson: Aexia: Is there a particular reason Republicans consider Nancy Pelosi to be "corrupt" or are they just butthurt over the Speaker having been a strong progressive woman?

She is not a Republican. That is all the reason they needed to begin full-throatedly, histrionically vilifying her starting the very minute she was elected House Speaker. Didn't matter who it was, her or someone else; whichever non-Republican is named Speaker or minority leader is going to be the most corrupt, batshiat-insane socialist lib who ever nazied.


Your label-maker broked.
 
2012-09-19 07:49:53 PM

Indubitably: BuckTurgidson: Aexia: Is there a particular reason Republicans consider Nancy Pelosi to be "corrupt" or are they just butthurt over the Speaker having been a strong progressive woman?

She is not a Republican. That is all the reason they needed to begin full-throatedly, histrionically vilifying her starting the very minute she was elected House Speaker. Didn't matter who it was, her or someone else; whichever non-Republican is named Speaker or minority leader is going to be the most corrupt, batshiat-insane socialist lib who ever nazied.

Your label-maker broked.


And there's no tape.
 
2012-09-19 07:51:34 PM

PlatinumDragon: Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists
//you should see our official opposition up here
///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left


Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of whatsername that's completely batshiat, and work our way to California and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.
 
2012-09-19 07:52:49 PM
Remember when Obama was elected and McConnell said 'the people have spoken...now let's get back to doing the country's business'. Yeah me neither.
 
2012-09-19 07:53:40 PM
His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct. I think people should stop getting angry when politicians tell the truth. Those who are dependent on the government for a paycheck are not likely to vote for smaller government. Why is this such a big story?
 
2012-09-19 07:53:48 PM

Kit Fister: PlatinumDragon: Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists
//you should see our official opposition up here
///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of whatsername that's completely batshiat, and work our way to California and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.


I honestly think you folks should just start ignoring them. All of them. State legislatures, too.

I wish we'd do that up here.
 
2012-09-19 07:56:08 PM

ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?


Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Also, '10 wasn't a presidential election year.
 
2012-09-19 07:58:06 PM

Kit Fister: PlatinumDragon: Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists
//you should see our official opposition up here
///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of ...


We need to change the system fundamentally, friend.

That won't happen with Rom-nay.

Obama is our only hope for the next four years vs. the Corporatocracy's advance...

*hologram out*
 
2012-09-19 07:58:12 PM

jso2897: Slu: Coelacanth: Mitch runs away from a lot of things Link

What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging. Hell, I can't say I wouldn't take any avenue possible to avoid getting drafted to fight in the Middle East. Man up and admit you are a pussy, Mitch. Some of us would be proud of you for it.

If said draft dodger is a pacifist, who doesn't want to send other people's kids off to die in wars, then he is morally consistent. If he is a warhawk, he's a hypocrite.


We all know where Mittens fits in that spectrum.

imageshack.us
 
2012-09-19 07:58:43 PM
ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.
 
2012-09-19 07:59:09 PM
Delivering prepared questions and not taking question? Unthinkable.
 
2012-09-19 07:59:28 PM

Bathia_Mapes: ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Also, '10 wasn't a presidential election year.


2008, m8.
 
2012-09-19 07:59:59 PM
Time to stop drinking.....

Delivering prepared comments and not taking questions? Unthinkable.
 
2012-09-19 08:00:18 PM

Mentat: True, but at this point any counterattack feels like the Battle of the Bulge.


The Battle of the Bulge worked when they renamed it the Tet Offensive.
 
2012-09-19 08:00:45 PM
As long as Sheldon Adelson has a couple billion in the bank, the race isn't over.
 
2012-09-19 08:00:49 PM
Bravely did they edit the tape, brave, brave libtards.

2 minutes missing from the tape. What did they edit out?
 
2012-09-19 08:02:47 PM
jso2897: Slu: What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging.

[farm6.staticflickr.com image 640x367]

Actually, coming from a family where the last 6 generations have been involved in the military, not just here, but in Germany, and Japan, I kind of do have a problem with that.

In particular, that Romney was such an ardent supporter of the war, that he bravely went to France, while dunning those who protested the war. That's just a piece of the issue that I have with Romney though. His character is beyond reprehensible, but as a candidate, he is just a broken ox-cart tilting into market...
 
2012-09-19 08:03:43 PM

gstefan: Bravely did they edit the tape, brave, brave libtards.

2 minutes missing from the tape. What did they edit out?


Seriously?

Just stop, please.

Or roll the tape, who cares?

Rom-nay.
 
2012-09-19 08:03:52 PM

Bathia_Mapes: ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Also, '10 wasn't a presidential election year.


To clarify, I was talking only about heated political threads bleeding onto Fark's main page.

The Politics tab was hopping in '10, a dispiriting right-wing gloatfest, properly sequestered 5 tabs to the right of Main, with the ever-sunlighty world of the Geek tab to serve as an insulator (barring the occasional AGW flame wars).

I will, of course, get over it.
 
2012-09-19 08:03:56 PM

gstefan: Bravely did they edit the tape, brave, brave libtards.

2 minutes missing from the tape. What did they edit out?


Obviously the part where Romney spun so eloquently that the REST of the tape is considered moot in some folks' books...
 
2012-09-19 08:05:00 PM

ivan: Bathia_Mapes: ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Also, '10 wasn't a presidential election year.

To clarify, I was talking only about heated political threads bleeding onto Fark's main page.

The Politics tab was hopping in '10, a dispiriting right-wing gloatfest, properly sequestered 5 tabs to the right of Main, with the ever-sunlighty world of the Geek tab to serve as an insulator (barring the occasional AGW flame wars).

I will, of course, get over it.


Wow.

You embed?
 
2012-09-19 08:07:51 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.


Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!
 
2012-09-19 08:08:09 PM
Jeez, Mittens, I can't believe those comments got out...

He hasn't heard the rules, has he?

THE FIRST RULE OF REPUBLICAN AMERICAN-CITIZEN-HATING CLUB IS YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT REPUBLICAN AMERICAN-CITIZEN-HATING CLUB!

/Used a variation of this joke about three times in the last few weeks in relation to Republicans and it just keeps working
 
2012-09-19 08:08:15 PM

Indubitably: ivan: Bathia_Mapes: ivan: ProfessorOhki: ivan: SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?

That's been happening a lot.

It's the re-politisation of the main page.

There will be no escape.

As the date approaches the election, political news approaches mainstream news. It will then decrease for 2 years before slowly building again.

I don't remember this happening in '08 or '10. Am I misremembering?

Compared to those, this is one of the most contentious presidential elections in years, if ever. I'm nearly 60 and I cannot recall ever seeing not just an extremely contentious election year, but such behavior by the GOP.

Also, '10 wasn't a presidential election year.

To clarify, I was talking only about heated political threads bleeding onto Fark's main page.

The Politics tab was hopping in '10, a dispiriting right-wing gloatfest, properly sequestered 5 tabs to the right of Main, with the ever-sunlighty world of the Geek tab to serve as an insulator (barring the occasional AGW flame wars).

I will, of course, get over it.

Wow.

You embed?


I'm flattered, but I'm happily married.
 
2012-09-19 08:09:11 PM
ferrellgummit.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-19 08:09:45 PM
Romney is simply not as competent as some make him out to be. Like Dubya, he wouldn't have been anything except for his daddy. Plus he believes in weird afterlife planets and wears magic farking underwear and shiat. I mean, when they were handing out religions, he was at the end of the line.
 
2012-09-19 08:10:08 PM
How dare Mitt say what the GOP believes!
And they do. Best thing Mittens can do is just stand by it and call the 47% worthless leeches and watch the base go nuts in approval.
Da da data da im loving it!
This could sink the whole USS Republican
 
2012-09-19 08:10:48 PM

amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.


How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?
 
2012-09-19 08:11:13 PM

gstefan: Bravely did they edit the tape, brave, brave libtards.

2 minutes missing from the tape. What did they edit out?


It wasn't actually edited. Romney had a system fault and had to reboot, and the resulting electromagnetic interference erased that section of the tape.

It was all just machine language bleeps and bloops anyway, I wouldn't be too concerned.
 
2012-09-19 08:11:27 PM
Bravest Sexiest of the brave sexy, Mitch McConnell

I'm sure every guy who sees his awesome countenance gets just as tumescent in his heart as I do. Only two more months till the erection.

I hate to think of him avoiding his ardent followers.

talkingpointsmemo.com
 
2012-09-19 08:12:01 PM

OriginalGamer: The_Original_Roxtar: ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!


Wrong answer, man; must vote for Obama, as in, get up off of your ass and vote for the President of the United States of America, man, please?

Thank you.
 
2012-09-19 08:13:40 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.


Voter suppression favors the GOP. Higher turnout favors Democrats.
 
2012-09-19 08:14:38 PM

jso2897: Slu: Coelacanth: Mitch runs away from a lot of things Link

What's funny about this is that I (and, I assume, a lot us born after the draft was disbanded) don't really have a problem with draft dodging. Hell, I can't say I wouldn't take any avenue possible to avoid getting drafted to fight in the Middle East. Man up and admit you are a pussy, Mitch. Some of us would be proud of you for it.

If said draft dodger is a pacifist, who doesn't want to send other people's kids off to die in wars, then he is morally consistent. If he is a warhawk, he's a hypocrite.


Yep. It's not about dodging the draft. It's about chickenhawk hypocrisy.

My uncle, who served in Vietnam, didn't mind Clinton dodging the draft because he was against the war. His beef with Romney is that he cheerled and protested in favor of the war, but suddenly remembered his religion forbade it when it came time for his number to get called up.

He has a problem with people wanting to bomb other countries, then asking for someone else to take their place in the line of fire.
 
2012-09-19 08:15:35 PM

gstefan: Bravely did they edit the tape, brave, brave libtards.

2 minutes missing from the tape. What did they edit out?


"I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."

/stolen
 
2012-09-19 08:15:45 PM
The analogy of the Ardennes Offensive and the Tet Offensive is a wee bit strained.
 
2012-09-19 08:16:57 PM

Indubitably: OriginalGamer: The_Original_Roxtar: ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!

Wrong answer, man; must vote for Obama, as in, get up off of your ass and vote for the President of the United States of America, man, please?

Thank you.


P.S. And I mean vote for marriage rights, voting rights (as in wtf, no?), and for less obfuscation and pandering to interests that don't give a shiat about you or me (semi-narcissist-talking-and-walking, btw), i.e. Corporations and multi-gazillionaires. Entitlement works both ways, jackhats.

P.P.S. Someone should calculate that shiat.
 
2012-09-19 08:16:57 PM

gstefan: Bravely did they edit the tape, brave, brave libtards.

2 minutes missing from the tape. What did they edit out?


Probably the part where Romney says, "Here's what I would say if I was actually a heartless tool who doesn't deserve to lead any American, anytime, anywhere.."
 
2012-09-19 08:18:16 PM
The fact that it's gotten to this point is rather sad in the global scope of this nation.

I hope I live to see the day when a formidable party is available to choose from. I'm tired of feeling so disenfranchised from two behemoth's conspiring to keep everyone else out of the running.

I'm tired of politicians in general and although they are the norm they don't need to be moving forward. First and foremost these are Governmental positions, not political positions. I'd like to see the majority of politics removed/ignored from these positions.

We really don't need political parties at all, we need people willing to govern for all of us in moral and ethical fashions. 

/I know, it's a pipe dream...
 
2012-09-19 08:19:06 PM

PlatinumDragon: Kit Fister: PlatinumDragon: Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

You seem to be saying both parties are equally negative. Is there a party you think we should vote for?

/you don't know extreme leftists
//you should see our official opposition up here
///and from where I sit, they're just moderately left

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of whatsername that's completely batshiat, and work our way to California and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.

I honestly think you folks should just start ignoring them. All of them. State legislatures, too.

I wish we'd do that up here.


God I wish. Don't get me wrong, it takes all kinds, and people probably wouldn't be as mindful of conservation, conditions of livestock, etc. if it weren't for some of the most radical leftists I can think of. They do some good.

This is why it saddens me to see us treat politics and the leadership of our country like a vicious brawl between two drunk frat boys with all of their drunk friends standing around cheering for their side to "get 'em" and "kill that motherfarker". We're adults, and largely who we choose controls the outcome in a lot of areas, so choosing wisely and having open discussion on topics that are important is a good thing. Figure out a consensus on the issues that matter the most or at least the ones that most need to be addressed, then vote the candidate that is stronger on those issues.

Anyway, I'm an idealist, and while I have certain hard line issues, I think when it comes to the running of our country, having both sides of the coin represented, or even more than two sides, is important in order to see the issue from as many viewpoints as possible to prevent kneejerk legislation because it sounded good but has glaring holes your particular ideals tended to overlook.
 
2012-09-19 08:19:26 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: OriginalGamer: The_Original_Roxtar: ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!

Wrong answer, man; must vote for Obama, as in, get up off of your ass and vote for the President of the United States of America, man, please?

Thank you.

P.S. And I mean vote for marriage rights, voting rights (as in wtf, no?), and for less obfuscation and pandering to interests that don't give a shiat about you or me (semi-narcissist-talking-and-walking, btw), i.e. Corporations and multi-gazillionaires. Entitlement works both ways, jackhats.

P.P.S. Someone should calculate that shiat.


P.P.P.S. Rich entitlements vs. Poor entitlements vs. Veteran entitlements vs. Corporate entitlements vs. Secure Entitlements, aka War.
 
2012-09-19 08:20:50 PM
My number one issue is to make sure Romney is a no term president.
 
2012-09-19 08:21:05 PM
Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit
 
2012-09-19 08:21:31 PM

Klom Dark: My number one issue is to make sure Romney is a no term president.


Yer goddamn right, man, word.
 
2012-09-19 08:22:00 PM

PlatinumDragon: Hmmm.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.


Just wait... There is no chance the anti-Rmoney folks leaked their best stuff this far from the election.
 
2012-09-19 08:22:16 PM

Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit


Typical Republican tactic: deny discourse.
 
2012-09-19 08:22:24 PM

Kit Fister:

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.




What do you dislike about President Obama?
I'm a moderate that leans liberal and unaffiliated with any political party, and I'm quite happy with him.

Now keep in mind, I'm a pretty young guy so I only remember President's Clinton and W. Bush. Even then I was much too young to follow or care about politics when Clinton was President. So pretty much, I've only ever known President W. Bush and President Obama. And lemme tell you something ... I'm far from the only Millennial (the largest population block in the United States) who despises the GOP for 2000-2008.
 
2012-09-19 08:25:00 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: Kit Fister:

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.



What do you dislike about President Obama?
I'm a moderate that leans liberal and unaffiliated with any political party, and I'm quite happy with him.

Now keep in mind, I'm a pretty young guy so I onl ...


I remember earlier: vote Obama, ore More-fizzle...
 
2012-09-19 08:26:33 PM

nyseattitude: The fact that it's gotten to this point is rather sad in the global scope of this nation.

I hope I live to see the day when a formidable party is available to choose from. I'm tired of feeling so disenfranchised from two behemoth's conspiring to keep everyone else out of the running.

I'm tired of politicians in general and although they are the norm they don't need to be moving forward. First and foremost these are Governmental positions, not political positions. I'd like to see the majority of politics removed/ignored from these positions.

We really don't need political parties at all, we need people willing to govern for all of us in moral and ethical fashions. 

/I know, it's a pipe dream...


One you and I share, brother.

"Politicians should be elected at swordpoint." - Plato
 
2012-09-19 08:27:31 PM
Ed Schultz(I know) is making the connection between Romney in the Boca clip saying he would turn something like the Iranian hostages to his advantage and his attack on Obama over the deaths in Benghazi.
 
2012-09-19 08:27:38 PM

BuckTurgidson: atomic-age: Raharu: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

What does RmoneyMoney (his rap name) bring to the table?

What are the specifics of his plan to aid America in these troubled times?

What is RmoneyMoneys position on key issues?

tax cuts

Don't forget deregulation, and more unneeded defense spending.


Don't worry, the tax cuts will pay for the unneeded defense spending.
 
2012-09-19 08:28:44 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: gstefan: Bravely did they edit the tape, brave, brave libtards.

2 minutes missing from the tape. What did they edit out?

"I'm Barack Obama and I approved this message."

/stolen


I'll throw in "Clint Eastwood has agreed to speak at the convention, so I think we're home free." if we're stealing jokes about it.

Seriously though; the idea that people honestly believe that there is something in the two minutes that contextualize statements made 10-15 minutes before and after the "edited" part is laughable. The person recording it said that the video recorder stopped and he had to manually fix it. Context means that the full idea of what a person was trying to say has been provided in an excerpt. Mitt Romney covered dozens of different topics in the 40 minutes we have of the recording, and those statements that people have found the most offense in are far removed from the period of the dinner in question. When the video cuts out he is talking about what internal polls were showing about the campaign back in May and when the video starts up again he is discussing policy on China. Did he take a break to say some stuff that someone would react positively too, and it was so great that the people releasing the video had to remove that but not any of the other content in the video that might be well received by someone watching it?

Plus you have to remember Romney stood by his statements, he just said he could have worded it better. The idea that it was manipulated to make him sound like he said things he didn't is ridiculous.
 
2012-09-19 08:29:28 PM
I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.
 
2012-09-19 08:30:09 PM

gstefan: Bravely did they edit the tape, brave, brave libtards.

2 minutes missing from the tape. What did they edit out?


The part where Moochelle stormed into the fundraiser, grabbed the mike, yelled "KILL WHITEY" for 90 seconds, then threw a gay fetus down on the plate and pronounced it Mitt's new sister-wife.
 
2012-09-19 08:30:55 PM

TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.


They are too busy pursuing that Hatch Act violation.
 
2012-09-19 08:31:11 PM

PonceAlyosha: Do you hear the sound, from far across the fields we know? Do you hear the crash of the anvil, as the hopes of the Republican party are forged into

[longboxgraveyard.files.wordpress.com image 493x286]


fc00.deviantart.net
 
2012-09-19 08:32:43 PM

stoli n coke: Coel


Well, if y'all look at his wikipedia page there's something right there about a medical discharge. Maybe that needs a citation... 

Oh wait, on further examination there is a citation:
Link
 
2012-09-19 08:33:08 PM

hubiestubert: To be honest, my issues with Romney come my Conservatism. Romney isn't a Moderate, he's not Conservative. He's just an amorphous blob of corporatist goo that doesn't even have ballast chambers to control his buoyancy...


That was glorious.
 
2012-09-19 08:33:24 PM

TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.


This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.
 
2012-09-19 08:34:01 PM
Mitch McConnell could take a lesson in bravery from President Obama when it comes to answering questions from the press. Just recently Mr. Obama sat through interviews with People Magazine, The Pimp with a Limp and David Letterman. Just after the attack on the diplomatic missions in the Middle East which lead to the death on an US Ambassador, President Obama stood before the Washington press corps and answered every question that was asked or I mean he would have answered every questions, if he allowed them.
 
2012-09-19 08:35:22 PM

TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.


They know who taped it. It was James Carter IV.

Also, unless the venue had a clearly marked "no recording devices" policy, it might be difficult to prove illegal activity.

Much like how musicians and comedians don't really have a leg to stand on when someone comes into a nightclub, records part of their performance, and posts it. They can ask for it to be taken down from the site, but that's really about it, and that action wouldn't do Lord Mittens of Prancey Horse much good now.
 
2012-09-19 08:35:22 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: PlatinumDragon: Hmmm.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.

Just wait... There is no chance the anti-Rmoney folks leaked their best stuff this far from the election.


What it boils down to is that WE, as an electorate, have to stop treating elections like they're sports events. There are no teams, just Americans making choices for their representatives. And that is what we have to reclaim. Representation. And that means NOT voting for folks, EVEN IF they're on your "team" if they show themselves to be amoral, reprehensible slime balls who put their own benefit before that of the people and the nation.

How many folks, would be voting for Romney if he were an Independent? How many would be voting for the man, not the "side"? Take that little letter away, and vote for the man, vote for the candidate who you think will do the best job. Based on words actually spoken. Based on past policies supported and enacted. Based on the job that they've done.

I am STILL fairly Conservative, but the party has abandoned those principles, but there are still folks I will vote for, based on their policy decisions. Based on their record. Some of them are Republicans. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them won't be either, this time around. I can say, for certain, that Mitt is NOT a good choice for the nation. If he were a Democrat, the folks who are decrying his treatment would be screaming for his head.

And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.
 
2012-09-19 08:36:03 PM

GoodyearPimp: PonceAlyosha: Do you hear the sound, from far across the fields we know? Do you hear the crash of the anvil, as the hopes of the Republican party are forged into

[longboxgraveyard.files.wordpress.com image 493x286]

[fc00.deviantart.net image 800x600]


P.S. De-Defrack, now, before you destroy the drinking water for everyone.

P.P.S. We don't need energy that much.
 
2012-09-19 08:36:30 PM

Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?


By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.
 
2012-09-19 08:37:10 PM

stoli n coke: They know who taped it. It was James Carter IV.


No. Carter just got the source in contact with the press.
 
2012-09-19 08:39:13 PM

amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.


Your oversimplification is from the Department of Oversimplification Department, man.
 
2012-09-19 08:39:21 PM

WTP 2: i thought i was the only one getting the monty reference
i see i was wrong
good on with the show


It is a silly place.
 
2012-09-19 08:40:08 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: stoli n coke: They know who taped it. It was James Carter IV.

No. Carter just got the source in contact with the press.


Exactly. 

Mr. President Carter,

*bow*
 
2012-09-19 08:40:13 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.



No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?
 
2012-09-19 08:42:08 PM

Gyrfalcon: WTP 2: i thought i was the only one getting the monty reference
i see i was wrong
good on with the show

It is a silly place.


Fark that.

It's time to affect change.

We can do this.

Vote Obama, now.

He's better-friend.
 
2012-09-19 08:42:13 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Ed Schultz(I know) is making the connection between Romney in the Boca clip saying he would turn something like the Iranian hostages to his advantage and his attack on Obama over the deaths in Benghazi.


Romney's camp has already denied this, saying that Romney was saying he would take advantage of a situation like that if it presents itself in response to the questioner mentioning that Romney needed to set up an Iranian hostage scenario where Iran announces it has abandoned nuclear technology minutes after Romney is sworn in. Hearing the response Romney goes back and forth between "man, it was great that Carter's foreign policy failures were all anyone wanted to talk about in the campaign" where he spread the criticism to Iraq and other Middle Eastern policies while also mentioning that Iran needs to be contained. I think there is plausible deniable that Romney was referring to the scenario the questioner suggested, but everybody already knew that Romney jumped on the Libya thing because he thought it would score points. We didn't need the video for that.

I think the more impressive part of that question was Romney's insistence that the lack of foreign policy focus was what was missing from the campaign: that it was a disadvantage to him that nobody wanted to make this a referendum on Obama's foreign policy record.
 
2012-09-19 08:42:16 PM

HellRaisingHoosier: Kit Fister:

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.



What do you dislike about President Obama?
I'm a moderate that leans liberal and unaffiliated with any political party, and I'm quite happy with him.

Now keep in mind, I'm a pretty young guy so I only remember President's Clinton and W. Bush. Even then I was much too young to follow or care about politics when Clinton was President. So pretty much, I've only ever known President W. Bush and President Obama. And lemme tell you something ... I'm far from the only Millennial (the largest population block in the United States) who despises the GOP for 2000-2008.


Small things, mostly. Nothing he's done so far has been outstandingly bad, though I think the stimulus, while great in theory, was a lot of money wasted on bad investments when there were better ways to reach the same objective.

The Fast and Furious debacle happened under his watch, and I can't believe that he didn't know about it. Shipping guns to mexico and inciting gun dealers to break the law in a program that ultimately was just a free for all gun buying extravaganza by the cartels with no way to achieve the track-and-stop goals. It earned bad press for a lot of people, and I'm sure added to the violence along the border.

I am disappointed with his lack of a firm stance on immigration. I'm not a tool that believes the US should build a wall around the country to keep those nasty illegals out, but I'm also not in favor of open borders and blanket amnesty either. Make it easier to get in if you're legit, and step up the policing of the ones who aren't.

I am disappointed by the healthcare bill. I've read it, and a lot of data on it, and it does nothing to solve the problems that actually cause healthcare costs and such in the US, and is at most a panacea.

I'm anti-terrorist and pro-safety as the next guy, but why are we still maintaining gitmo, attacking people with drones instead of using resources that are much more precise and reliable? Why are we supporting states that hate us, and neglecting states that really need help?

I have issues with both republican and democrat platforms in general for their bass-ackwards policies that neglect the simple things that would do more good for the country than talking point legislation (being able to say "I banned the devil weed" or "I banned the evil-looking guns" is more sexy on the news than saying "we reinvested our dollars into crime prevention programs, urban renewal, education, and programs to help those with addictions; increased our spending on post-incarceration rehab and reassimilation programs, and reformed prisons.") However, that isn't square on Obama, even if he has said he'll sign another AWB or fails to highlight and spearhead change that helps domestically.
 
2012-09-19 08:42:59 PM

TOSViolation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?


Oh, please.

Just stop.

Thank you.
 
2012-09-19 08:44:25 PM

TOSViolation: Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.


Another GED in law.
 
2012-09-19 08:44:28 PM

Kit Fister: HellRaisingHoosier: Kit Fister:

Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.

We may not be able to go back to a time pre-big industry when the rugged individual could hold his own and be left to his own devices without inducing a massive fail, and some shifting towards a more socially responsible system is a good thing. However, there are limits, and balance helps maintain that by at least slowing down or blocking the most outrageously poorly thought out legislation.

Then again, we still have the problem of how to strip politicians of their greed and bottom-line me-first attitude where they tack on riders and all sorts of shiat that makes a good bill do horrible horrible things, but that's another discussion.



What do you dislike about President Obama?
I'm a moderate that leans liberal and unaffiliated with any political party, and I'm quite happy with him.

Now keep in mind, I'm a pretty ...


Stimulus started with Da' Bush, DA.
 
2012-09-19 08:44:55 PM

amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.




Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :


The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
 
2012-09-19 08:45:43 PM
Seriously?

This is the Republican Response?

Sheet.
 
2012-09-19 08:48:00 PM

hubiestubert: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: PlatinumDragon: Hmmm.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.

Just wait... There is no chance the anti-Rmoney folks leaked their best stuff this far from the election.

What it boils down to is that WE, as an electorate, have to stop treating elections like they're sports events. There are no teams, just Americans making choices for their representatives. And that is what we have to reclaim. Representation. And that means NOT voting for folks, EVEN IF they're on your "team" if they show themselves to be amoral, reprehensible slime balls who put their own benefit before that of the people and the nation.

How many folks, would be voting for Romney if he were an Independent? How many would be voting for the man, not the "side"? Take that little letter away, and vote for the man, vote for the candidate who you think will do the best job. Based on words actually spoken. Based on past policies supported and enacted. Based on the job that they've done.

I am STILL fairly Conservative, but the party has abandoned those principles, but there are still folks I will vote for, based on their policy decisions. Based on their record. Some of them are Republicans. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them won't be either, this time around. I can say, for certain, that Mitt is NOT a good choice for the nation. If he were a Democrat, the folks who are decrying his treatment would be screaming for his head.

And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.


This
 
2012-09-19 08:48:41 PM

coyo: amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.



Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :


The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.


Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.
 
2012-09-19 08:50:23 PM

hubiestubert: And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.


Motherfarking THIS. You know, if they hadn't ousted Huntsman as a science-and-common-sense-addled RINO, I probably still would vote for Obama, but I sure as hell wouldn't be tearing my hair out if Huntsman won. The man's got sense and sensibility, and I'd be happy enough having him as my President (and I'm sure our allies would, too). This goddamned "team spirit" thing is tearing us apart as a country, and it needs to end pronto. Unfortunately, in the astroturfing of the Tea Party, Fox news (the most egregious cheerleaders for their team), corporate America and the GOP created a golem they can no longer control, and it's only pushed us into the depths of hyperpartisanship.
 
2012-09-19 08:51:33 PM

Indubitably: Seriously?

This is the Republican Response?

Sheet.


P.S. Organ failure is ugly. You ready? ;)
 
2012-09-19 08:51:37 PM

amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: His numbers were a bit off. For the most part the sentiment was correct.

How much off is "a bit" off? What percentage of Americans perceive themselves as victims, think they are entitled to the government everything from cradle to grave, and cannot be convinced that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives? What is this base that the Democrats rely on, what percentage of Americans match that description, and what evidence do you have of that? The most generous number I can come up with would be 20%, the peak percent of Americans on food stamps (which occurred this summer but has thankfully fallen since). Are all those people who applied for food stamps diehard Obama voters who don't have the human dignity to not rely on the government?

By definition when Obama says he wants everybody to get a fair shake he means everybody's not getting a fair shake. In other words they are victims of a flawed system. Those that agree with that sentiment do believe that they are victims in some capacity of a flawed system.

That message is resonating with his supporters. Many believe that they are not getting a fair shake. That is the thought of somebody who thinks they're a victim. This is a large part of his base.

We are guaranteed equal rights not equal prosperity. His rhetoric is aimed at people who believe that we deserve equal prosperity.


Saying the system as it exists right now isn't fair is a statement that everyone who isn't given advantages by the system is a victim of it?

You DO realize that there isn't one person running for office who isn't running on a promise of changed policy. Everyone thinks that the government isn't doing right by the people, and believes policies can be put in place to relieve these concerns.

It would be like claiming Romney is supported by a bunch of people who see themselves as victims of the government because their marginal federal income taxes rates are 20% higher then where he thinks they should be.
 
2012-09-19 08:51:41 PM

Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit


Nice full-throated defense of Romney's policy statements. I, for one, am convinced.
 
2012-09-19 08:53:18 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: Seriously?

This is the Republican Response?

Sheet.

P.S. Organ failure is ugly. You ready? ;)


P.P.S. According to law that's okay for American detainees; I disagree as an American, born and raised, btw.
 
2012-09-19 08:53:39 PM
PussyWillow!
 
2012-09-19 08:53:51 PM

Indubitably: Oh, please.

Just stop.

Thank you.



No. The issue isn't what Romney did or did not say. If you believe that anything a presidential candidate says during campaign fundraisers should be public information, then go ask for that to be made into law. I'm not saying I disagree with the notion. That's not what interests me.

What interests me is why anyone thinks this is ok to do. Let's remove the presidential campaign aspect of this. Suppose this was a CEO talking about an upcoming product. Would not corporate espionage laws apply? When an event is held as a PRIVATE HOME, why cannot a reasonable level of privacy be expected?

This whole social media, I get to know everything about everyone, voyeurism mentality is ridiculous.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

Another GED in law.



Nope. No law degree of any sort. That statement was not a statement of law. It was a statement of opinion. Note the word MIGHT in there. For all we know, the person who recorded the event was hired under a confidentiality agreement in her contract. I just feel like a crime occurred in the secret recording. I'm not sure how hidden camera shows and news investigations get away with some of the things they do either.

Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.
 
2012-09-19 08:55:00 PM

OriginalGamer: The_Original_Roxtar: ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!


lol... you think your vote matters

I'm tired of being offered a "choice" between 2 equally shiatty options. "only those with an R or a D in parentheses can possibly win, all others are to be ignored or mocked/shouted down"
The 2 party system needs to die. now. then and only then will we be able to discuss actual issues rather than "platforms" and "talking points".
 
2012-09-19 08:55:23 PM

amquelbettamin: coyo:

Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :


The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.



You know how I know you don't understand the significance of Adam Smith?

Aside from that, the argument is that people receiving capital gains income should be taxed at a higher rate than those who's income comes from a job. The job increases the wealth of society and is useful. The income from capital gains is fallow - it has no benefit to society.
 
2012-09-19 08:55:33 PM

atomic-age: BuckTurgidson: atomic-age: Raharu: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

What does RmoneyMoney (his rap name) bring to the table?

What are the specifics of his plan to aid America in these troubled times?

What is RmoneyMoneys position on key issues?

tax cuts

Don't forget deregulation, and more unneeded defense spending.

Don't worry, the tax cuts will pay for the unneeded defense spending.


It's not that the spending is unneeded, it's that we're spending so much on shiat like jets that can't fly in the rain and try to kill pilots, weapons systems that don't work/don't solve problems, and military hardware that is obsolete by any general standard of modern warfare, we can't afford the small stuff like better vehicles that are safer against IEDs and other hit and run attacks, better body armor, better healthcare for vets, improved training methods, etc.

Seriously, our nation focuses so much on the cool shiat that we neglect the basic fact that without sufficient training and skill, any advantage cool gadgets may give us is negated by incompetance of the soldier/marine/whatever.

I know a fair few old school military folks that were in NSW and other similar elite units, and all of them talk about some of the piss poor training and skills by more common units they encountered.

So, yeah, maybe spending on what we need, like basics for personnel housing, care, training, protection, and outfitting, and less on the next super nuke that we won't use, or jet we'll warehouse.
 
2012-09-19 08:56:44 PM
nonamedufus.files.wordpress.com

"I NEVER!"
 
2012-09-19 08:56:53 PM

buckler: hubiestubert: And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.

Motherfarking THIS. You know, if they hadn't ousted Huntsman as a science-and-common-sense-addled RINO, I probably still would vote for Obama, but I sure as hell wouldn't be tearing my hair out if Huntsman won. The man's got sense and sensibility, and I'd be happy enough having him as my President (and I'm sure our allies would, too). This goddamned "team spirit" thing is tearing us apart as a country, and it needs to end pronto. Unfortunately, in the astroturfing of the Tea Party, Fox news (the most egregious cheerleaders for their team), corporate America and the GOP created a golem they can no longer control, and it's only pushed us into the depths of hyperpartisanship.


Amen, brother.
 
2012-09-19 08:57:22 PM

mongbiohazard: I honestly thought Romney was going to make a much more challenging opponent for Obama then he has been proving to be. Yes, it's not over until it's over but his weakness is endemic. It's not something to be easily overcome with a pithy slogan.

I thought Romney would be challenging for Obama because he would point to his record in MA and portray himself as a sane moderate alternative. Little did I know that his campaign would decide to portray him as a full-on conservative instead. What fools - you don't win general elections in this age without being able to appeal outside of your base to the "other" side. The republican base was always going to vote for Romney no matter what... So he really had to swing only so many voters away from Obama to win.

Instead he abandons those hopes and tries to portray himself as a deep conservative, and gets a supposed conservative to run with him. I think the root problem is that Romney does not actually HAVE an ideology of his own. He has ambition, he has a sense of entitlement - but he has shown every sign of actually having no significant ideology of his own besides achieving his own personal ambitions. I thought his lack of ideology would be a strength for him as it would allow him to pretend to be what he needed to be. I failed to realize that having absolutely NO actual philosophical ideology of his own would instead be a weakness because 1. he'd be just as likely to pretend to be something OTHER than what he needed to be to win the general election and 2. his insincerity would be impossible to hide considering the depth and breadth of his utter lack of his own philosophy.


This is the same thamn ding that happened to McCain. While I didn't vote for him and never planned to, if he talked during the campaign like he talked during his concession speech, he'd have won over a lot more voters.

The insanecrazypsycho right wing base forces their candidates so far right they can't juggle the competing demands of primary and general election rhetoric. And the more they lose, the crazier they get.

This does not look good for the the RNC. Not that I am too concerned about that.
 
2012-09-19 08:58:36 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

"These are the people who never pay taxes." - Mitt Romney, 2012
 
2012-09-19 08:58:50 PM

Girion47: fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.


/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?


no
 
2012-09-19 08:59:00 PM
Gads that man is hideous of appearance. He is truly dick headed.
 
2012-09-19 08:59:31 PM

TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.


Even though you did not provide a link to the text of the law that was broken, I am sure you double and triple-checked the entire statute to make sure the taping met all of the requirements of an illegal act, lest you mislead us, right?
 
2012-09-19 08:59:43 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


Unless somehow you want to claim Romney's a teacher.
 
2012-09-19 09:00:16 PM
It just pisses me off that we can't seem to get a Republican president who acknowledges the significance of the fact that STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE get to vote too.

Why can't the Republican candidates learn how to lie like the Democrats at least until the election is over?!

If Republicans were better liars, we wouldn't be down in this ditch Obama paid illegal immigrants to dig for us.
 
2012-09-19 09:01:26 PM
Still waiting for a last-minute reveal of Mittser Burns' multi-year tax filling, which have been held as a red herring. Or they're so dense that they can't be parsed in time to get the info to the public.

Also, I'm not underestimating the anti-Obama-no-matter-what vote.

As well as the Mormons who will all come out to vote for their candidate, so that he can fulfill the prophecy.
 
2012-09-19 09:02:17 PM

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

Even though you did not provide a link to the text of the law that was broken, I am sure you double and triple-checked the entire statute to make sure the taping met all of the requirements of an illegal act, lest you mislead us, right?



Nope, but I did RTFA. I don't really care what the law says, and I don't care what you think it says either. Neither of us are lawyers. If we were, we'd be sitting on a beach, sipping mai tais instead of wasting time on Fark.
 
2012-09-19 09:02:50 PM

amquelbettamin: coyo: Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.


If we're including every sort of tax to try to claim that the existence of such taxes are what Smith meant when he suggested a progressive taxation system I should make you aware that when factoring in all taxes people pay on average about the same percent of their income in taxes regardless of income level. Plus the fact that you bring up long term capital gains taxes as a tax that unduly burdens high income individuals shows you don't quite get percentages (hint: it is more profitable to let your money do the work for you after a certain income level.)
 
2012-09-19 09:03:49 PM

TOSViolation: Indubitably: Oh, please.

Just stop.

Thank you.


No. The issue isn't what Romney did or did not say. If you believe that anything a presidential candidate says during campaign fundraisers should be public information, then go ask for that to be made into law. I'm not saying I disagree with the notion. That's not what interests me.

What interests me is why anyone thinks this is ok to do. Let's remove the presidential campaign aspect of this. Suppose this was a CEO talking about an upcoming product. Would not corporate espionage laws apply? When an event is held as a PRIVATE HOME, why cannot a reasonable level of privacy be expected?

This whole social media, I get to know everything about everyone, voyeurism mentality is ridiculous.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

Another GED in law.


Nope. No law degree of any sort. That statement was not a statement of law. It was a statement of opinion. Note the word MIGHT in there. For all we know, the person who recorded the event was hired under a confidentiality agreement in her contract. I just feel like a crime occurred in the secret recording. I'm not sure how hidden camera shows and news investigations get away with some of the things they do either.

Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.


Wut?

*cue fruit*

"Seriously? You judged that Citizens United made sense under the law, and now you ask me to accept his gaffe as anything other than apropo? Dude gaffed. Like giraffe-gaffe. Long-neck wrong. Kneeds to kneel to drink water for swear. Douchebag. Moochbag? He decrys while he benefits from the same policies. What was his entitlement over the last ten years? Oh, right, he won't reveal that...nss?"

"Doublethink squared."
 
2012-09-19 09:04:43 PM

theoe: Girion47: fark you Mitch, during your next election cycle I'm going to be campaigning hard against you, I don't even care what kind of dumbshiat the democrats dig up to oppose you, I'm going to try my hardest to evict you from office.


/SF Farkers, if I can eliminate Mitch will you get rid of Nancy?

no


No? That batshiat insane witch? Keep her in your state, if you must keep her, bit don't inflict her on the rest of the country.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:02 PM

Indubitably: TOSViolation: Indubitably: Oh, please.

Just stop.

Thank you.


No. The issue isn't what Romney did or did not say. If you believe that anything a presidential candidate says during campaign fundraisers should be public information, then go ask for that to be made into law. I'm not saying I disagree with the notion. That's not what interests me.

What interests me is why anyone thinks this is ok to do. Let's remove the presidential campaign aspect of this. Suppose this was a CEO talking about an upcoming product. Would not corporate espionage laws apply? When an event is held as a PRIVATE HOME, why cannot a reasonable level of privacy be expected?

This whole social media, I get to know everything about everyone, voyeurism mentality is ridiculous.

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

Another GED in law.


Nope. No law degree of any sort. That statement was not a statement of law. It was a statement of opinion. Note the word MIGHT in there. For all we know, the person who recorded the event was hired under a confidentiality agreement in her contract. I just feel like a crime occurred in the secret recording. I'm not sure how hidden camera shows and news investigations get away with some of the things they do either.

Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.

Wut?

*cue fruit*

"Seriously? You judged that Citizens United made sense under the law, and now you ask me to accept his gaffe as anything other than apropo? Dude gaffed. Like giraffe-gaffe. Long-neck wrong. Kneeds to kneel to drink water for swear. Douchebag. Moochbag? He decrys while he benefits from t ...


Bam and boom.

;)
 
2012-09-19 09:05:11 PM

TOSViolation: Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.


This is the United States of America. Unlike England, you can publish anything you can find out about public figures if it's for the public good. This has been true since Jefferson was president.

Would you have been against Woodward and Berstein as well? This was about the same thing, in the way the the New Testament and Life of Brian are about the same thing.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:27 PM

TOSViolation: It just pisses me off that we can't seem to get a Republican president who acknowledges the significance of the fact that STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE get to vote too.

Why can't the Republican candidates learn how to lie like the Democrats at least until the election is over?!

If Republicans were better liars, we wouldn't be down in this ditch Obama paid illegal immigrants to dig for us.


Thanks for clearing that up.

I mean, it's broad, implausible, partisan hackery and in no way connected with anything factual, it is, however, bound to rile people up and toss Mitt a couple of votes.

And he'll need a few.

Cause he's alienated everybody who isn't pigf*cking and P&L statements can't actually vote.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:28 PM

TOSViolation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?


It is, if it's INFORMATION, like a patent or copyrighted material. It can be, if there is any falsehood or slander by use of the information, which is likely why Romney (the lawyer-hating attorney from Harvard) wanted the whole tape produced: If the clips by virtue of misuse placed him in a "false light", there would be ground for a defamation charge. (False light, in the sense of defamation, means it seems to show the speaker taking a stance he did not take, or saying something he didn't actually say)

But here, neither of those apply. Although it was a "private" speech, speech itself does not "belong" to the speaker, once it's left his mouth. It is, as they say "in the air" and therefore becomes free to all takers. Suppose someone at the speech had been making a longhand transcription of the speech and then published that. What, exactly has been stolen in that case? Romney said it, someone else heard it and wrote it down, and then someone else printed it. What was stolen, and from whom?

Now it's also possible that if the private speech was held in a private location with prominently posted signs that said "NO AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDINGS ALLOWED" that the recorder could be charged with violation if any statutes applied; those are like the laws prohibiting you from filming in a movie theater or at a speech that will be recorded and sold later. But in any of those cases, the burden is on the person claiming his movie or copyrighted speech was taken in violation of posted signs. Otherwise, Free Speech Doctrine assumes that if you're saying it, you want it heard, and you have no recourse if someone takes you more literally than you intended.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:29 PM

TOSViolation: It just pisses me off that we can't seem to get a Republican president who acknowledges the significance of the fact that STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE get to vote too.


Please, the GOP candidates were all over the Tea Party rallies.

Or do you think all those folks with no other plans at 1 PM on a Wednesday were all "small business owners?"
 
2012-09-19 09:05:33 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.



And yet you're going to be extremely unhappy for the next 4 years.
 
2012-09-19 09:05:56 PM

coyo: amquelbettamin: coyo:

Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :


The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.



You know how I know you don't understand the significance of Adam Smith?

Aside from that, the argument is that people receiving capital gains income should be taxed at a higher rate than those who's income comes from a job. The job increases the wealth of society and is useful. The income from capital gains is fallow - it has no benefit to society.


I agree that my flippant response was not rigorous. However how much of the tax burden do you think the starving masses are carrying in this country? Even a flat tax would disproportionately affect the rich.

While we're on that Smith quote: what would you consider a luxury good? Is a cellular telephone a luxury good?
 
2012-09-19 09:05:58 PM

Indubitably: Wut?

*cue fruit*

"Seriously? You judged that Citizens United made sense under the law, and now you ask me to accept his gaffe as anything other than apropo? Dude gaffed. Like giraffe-gaffe. Long-neck wrong. Kneeds to kneel to drink water for swear. Douchebag. Moochbag? He decrys while he benefits from t ...



Is there someone in your house with you? I think you may be having a stroke. Don't wait. Call 911 now. Time lost is brain lost.
 
2012-09-19 09:06:34 PM

TOSViolation: Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.


www.crabbygolightly.com

There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line....

ARREST THEM! 
 
2012-09-19 09:07:24 PM
Who used to spout on and on about "sneering liberals"? He's missing out I think.
 
2012-09-19 09:09:01 PM

TOSViolation: Indubitably: Wut?

*cue fruit*

"Seriously? You judged that Citizens United made sense under the law, and now you ask me to accept his gaffe as anything other than apropo? Dude gaffed. Like giraffe-gaffe. Long-neck wrong. Kneeds to kneel to drink water for swear. Douchebag. Moochbag? He decrys while he benefits from t ...


Is there someone in your house with you? I think you may be having a stroke. Don't wait. Call 911 now. Time lost is brain lost.


*rumble*
 
2012-09-19 09:09:03 PM
Oh, Mitch Mc...I thought you said MikeMc
 
2012-09-19 09:10:04 PM
 
2012-09-19 09:10:08 PM

Indubitably: Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit

Typical Republican tactic: deny discourse.


lol...you make discourse you asshat. And I DO DENY YOU...FARKwad
 
2012-09-19 09:10:50 PM

Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: coyo: Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.

If we're including every sort of tax to try to claim that the existence of such taxes are what Smith meant when he suggested a progressive taxation system I should make you aware that when factoring in all taxes people pay on average about the same percent of their income in taxes regardless of income level. Plus the fact that you bring up long term capital gains taxes as a tax that unduly burdens high income individuals shows you don't quite get percentages (hint: it is more profitable to let your money do the work for you after a certain income level.)


If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.
 
2012-09-19 09:11:54 PM

KrispyKritter: i wish more usa citizens were as concerned and aware as you Farkers are. i know too many people in 'real life' that have their heads so far up their arse they would still vote romney if he raped a babby live on TV.



Actually it's worse. There are about 100 million who are eligible to vote but seemingly don't know or care who's running.
 
2012-09-19 09:12:05 PM

Snapper Carr: We all know where Mittens fits in that spectrum.


imageshack.us

Romney reminds me of Spaulding Smails from Caddyshack. Born spoiled-rotten filthy stinking rich, but arrogant as Hell as dumber than a sack of Stupid.

i440.photobucket.com

Bet Mittens eats his own boogers too.
 
2012-09-19 09:12:08 PM
are we into finding obama with a dead girl or live boy for him to lose this yet?
 
2012-09-19 09:12:24 PM
We have a populace armed with data capable portable phones with video cameras and small condenser mics in them and the ability to post the footage on a global refrigerator door in about 20 sec. flat. Wake the f*ck up, mister candidate man, cause you can't just park your ass on a caboose and whistle stop through the US, spouting whatever the people in Otter Titty, IN want to hear until you get to Moose Nipple IL and then change your tune. It's not a microscope it's a 50' screen, and you can't bribe the director or just keep sending thugs to taze them and take their cameras. Your old road is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, cause the times they are a changin'.
 
2012-09-19 09:13:06 PM

Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?


It's not a different set of opinions. The GOP is a cancer on the American landscape. And seriously, you claim to be a centrist leaning right and you're using term leftist? Here's a clue: the Democrats are hardly left much less hard left enough to be considered leftist. Obama, of anything is slightly left of center.

The reason people are happy that the GOP appears to be self destructing is because people want the GOP to eject the teabaggers and other hard right elements and become the party of conservatives again.

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

There is very little "extreme leftist" anything. And nobody thinks there should't be a counterbalance. The problem is that the current GOP is destructive.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

Hey! Look! it's a Fark Independent.
 
2012-09-19 09:13:10 PM

The_Original_Roxtar: OriginalGamer: The_Original_Roxtar: ah yes, the "my team" vs "their team" farknuggetry that comprises 99.9732% of US politics.

newsflash: even the ones on "your team" are only telling you what they think you want to hear. they don't give a fark about you.

Yeah, fark it. NO ONE VOTE!

lol... you think your vote matters

I'm tired of being offered a "choice" between 2 equally shiatty options. "only those with an R or a D in parentheses can possibly win, all others are to be ignored or mocked/shouted down"
The 2 party system needs to die. now. then and only then will we be able to discuss actual issues rather than "platforms" and "talking points".


LoL, you think your vote doesn't matter.

We have more than 2 parties, vote for one of them. Not voting makes you an idiot with no right to biatch.
 
2012-09-19 09:13:40 PM

Gyrfalcon: TOSViolation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?

It is, if it's INFORMATION, like a patent or copyrighted material. It can be, if there is any falsehood or slander by use of the information, which is likely why Romney (the lawyer-hating attorney from Harvard) wanted the whole tape produced: If the clips by virtue of misuse placed him in a "false light", there would be ground for a defamation charge. (False light, in the sense of defamation, means it seems to show the speaker taking a stance he did not take, or saying something he didn't actually say)

But here, neither of those apply. Although it was a "private" speech, speech itself does not "belong" to the speaker, once it's left his mouth. It is, as they say "in the air" ...



I don't know. I don't care enough to read into the Martin Luther King Jr. speech, but I know they'll sue your ass if you try to publish it, whatever their justification may be.

Yes. I'm really pissed at Romney for saying that. I just wish, if he was going to say it, he would have said it at an undeniably PUBLIC venue. I still think it was wrong for the person to record the event.

Why can't we get a BLACK, well-educated, Republican, candidate without an unreasonable sense of entitlement to run for president?

I'd vote for Colin Powell any day.
 
2012-09-19 09:14:12 PM

TOSViolation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

This has been covered. Q&A in front of a crowd pretty much negates a reasonable expectation of privacy.


No. It was a private, by-invitation-only, event where the press was strictly prohibited from attending.

Had the recording been taken by an invited attendee (not hired catering staff), then that might be different.

I think the biggest issue I have is with the "free speech" application to distribution of illegally obtained video/audio. That's the biggest one that bothers me. Apparently, there is case law that protects radio/television/journalists from distributing illegal recordings. That's crap.

If I knowingly receive stolen property, I get arrested for even accepting it. If, after the fact, I find out it was stolen, it's still confiscated from me. Why should "stolen information" be treated any differently?


Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?
 
2012-09-19 09:14:42 PM

Kit Fister: hubiestubert: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: PlatinumDragon: Hmmm.

I wonder what the voicemails and email inboxes of Republican legislators' offices must be like these days.

This is toxic for the GOP. Their already-lukewarm presidential candidate is now radioactive, individual legislators are disclaiming his remarks, and the leadership isn't willing to mount more than a weak, token defence before quite literally retreating for safe ground.

I honestly didn't expect a self-inflicted bombshell like this, certainly not after the conventions. His reputation as a liar and chameleon made a lot of people suspicious even before the nomination race began. The short foreign tour was damaging enough. The Libya screwup made him look jumpy and desperate. To have his real opinions about half of the country, along with other spectacularly poor ideas, caught coming out of his own mouth after all of this time, apparently leaked by a Republican, may finish him in the purple states. I wonder if he could even lose a solidly red state or two.

Just wait... There is no chance the anti-Rmoney folks leaked their best stuff this far from the election.

What it boils down to is that WE, as an electorate, have to stop treating elections like they're sports events. There are no teams, just Americans making choices for their representatives. And that is what we have to reclaim. Representation. And that means NOT voting for folks, EVEN IF they're on your "team" if they show themselves to be amoral, reprehensible slime balls who put their own benefit before that of the people and the nation.

How many folks, would be voting for Romney if he were an Independent? How many would be voting for the man, not the "side"? Take that little letter away, and vote for the man, vote for the candidate who you think will do the best job. Based on words actually spoken. Based on past policies supported and enacted. Based on the job that they've done.

I am STILL fairly Conservative, but the party has abandoned those principles, but there are still folks I will vote for, based on their policy decisions. Based on their record. Some of them are Republicans. Some of them are Democrats. Some of them won't be either, this time around. I can say, for certain, that Mitt is NOT a good choice for the nation. If he were a Democrat, the folks who are decrying his treatment would be screaming for his head.

And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.

This


I think most American citizens agree with these ideas, but in this rigged two-party system it seems like there is nothing that can be done short of a total revamp of our entire electoral process.
 
2012-09-19 09:15:38 PM

Rindred: Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit

Nice full-throated defense of Romney's policy statements. I, for one, am convinced.


wow...you so show your brainpower here. I never said anything about "CatchersMitt" Rom...

Don't like the guy...like you worse. You and those like you that think with your asses. Try thinking with your brains and common sense for a change. Both candidates would be strung up if we did.

This site...brains not needed
 
2012-09-19 09:16:02 PM

jmr61: SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.

And yet you're going to be extremely unhappy for the next 4 years.


It's OK. They like being angry and feeling persecuted, it seems.
 
2012-09-19 09:16:11 PM

Dahnkster: TOSViolation: Sure, bad people do and say bad things. I think they should be held accountable for those things. There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line, you stop being the "crusader for justice" and start being the criminal. It just feels like that line was crossed by the person who recorded the event.

www.crabbygolightly.com

There still is a point where a line has to be drawn. When you cross that line....

ARREST THEM!



I don't even know what in the Hell you're trying to say there. Not a single one of those cameras is hidden. They're all outside, in a public venue.

Are you having a stroke too? (it's definitely not one of genius)
 
2012-09-19 09:17:49 PM
I can put a halt to all this sh*t in about 10 seconds. It's astoundingly easy, works flawlessly and it will never happen.
 
2012-09-19 09:18:20 PM

mongbiohazard: you don't win general elections in this age without being able to appeal outside of your base to the "other" side. The republican base was always going to vote for Romney no matter what... So he really had to swing only so many voters away from Obama to win.


I know this, you know this, we all know this - they MUST know this. So the question is, why don't they apparently even want to try and win?
 
2012-09-19 09:18:21 PM

TOSViolation: It just pisses me off that we can't seem to get a Republican president who acknowledges the significance of the fact that STUPID, LAZY PEOPLE get to vote too.

Why can't the Republican candidates learn how to lie like the Democrats at least until the election is over?!

If Republicans were better liars, we wouldn't be down in this ditch Obama paid illegal immigrants to dig for us.


They used to be.

You have only yourselves to blame, pandering to the fringie Teahadist base in 2010. Some of us Democrats (me) warned you and warned you that you were opening Pandora's box with that one, and you scoffed and said you'd rein them back as soon as the midterm elections were done. But some of THEM got elected as well, and they insisted on driving the GOP farther into the fringe.

The GOP used to fight the dirtiest, ugliest campaigns ever--they still have the record for most money spent to smear a candidate and dirtiest tricks ever played (both Nixon, IIRC), but they never alienated the people who had to vote for them, and they always went back to running the country when they were done. Since 2008, they've been lying, cheating, stealing and slandering right out in the open and still your fringies want more. So you have only your pandering selves to blame, I'm afraid.
 
2012-09-19 09:19:17 PM

Gestankfaust: Rindred: Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit

Nice full-throated defense of Romney's policy statements. I, for one, am convinced.

wow...you so show your brainpower here. I never said anything about "CatchersMitt" Rom...

Don't like the guy...like you worse. You and those like you that think with your asses. Try thinking with your brains and common sense for a change. Both candidates would be strung up if we did.

This site...brains not needed


Wow, aren't you a little ray of sunshine? I'm thinking perfectly fine, thanks. Your comment didn't deserve better, Snoop Trolly Troll.
 
2012-09-19 09:19:17 PM

Some Bass Playing Guy: Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?



Do you even know what a GED is? Is your cat typing for you while you babble incoherently with your mouth stuck to your bong?
 
2012-09-19 09:21:19 PM

TOSViolation: Some Bass Playing Guy: Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?


Do you even know what a GED is? Is your cat typing for you while you babble incoherently with your mouth stuck to your bong?


I think I'm gonna shut you off now. You have nothing useful to say and you're not witty. Nothing personal.
 
2012-09-19 09:21:24 PM

TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.


So you think Jammy Okeefe should be in jail and ACORN should still be in business? Am I reading you correctly?
 
2012-09-19 09:21:50 PM

ivan: To clarify, I was talking only about heated political threads bleeding onto Fark's main page.


Ah, thanks for the clarification.
 
2012-09-19 09:22:02 PM

ivan: He will make DAMN SURE Obama does NOT become a three-term president.


Hopefully he'll fail in that too.
 
2012-09-19 09:22:21 PM

bunner: TOSViolation: Some Bass Playing Guy: Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?


Do you even know what a GED is? Is your cat typing for you while you babble incoherently with your mouth stuck to your bong?

I think I'm gonna shut you off now. You have nothing useful to say and you're not witty. Nothing personal.



Did you forget what site you're on? Seriously? You want wit and intelligence? I think you got lost.
 
2012-09-19 09:23:12 PM

TOSViolation: Did you forget what site you're on? Seriously? You want wit and intelligence? I think you got lost.


Take a compliment when it's given with grace.
 
2012-09-19 09:23:53 PM
This is what Mitt Rmoney ACTUALLY believes:


He believes that Jesus Christ is Satan's brother.
He believes that God lives near a planet called "Kolob."
He believes in baptizing dead people.
He believes that Jesus is married to a goddess wife.
He believes that The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
He believes that it was impossible for Negroes to go to Heaven before 1978.
He believes that Jesus has children from his wife or wives.
He believes that he is going to become a god.
He believes he will own his own personal planet after he dies.
He believes the real Christian God is not eternal but rather that He was once a man on some other planet besides Earth!
He believes he needs to wear magical underwear created by Mormons and he is never to take it off unless he is bathing.
He believes it is a sin to drink anything containing caffeine. And that even includes True American™ drinks like Coca-Cola!
He believes children between the ages of 18-21 should wear name badges, ride bicycles and always smile.


......and he's an idiot.
 
2012-09-19 09:24:05 PM

snitramc: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

So you think Jammy Okeefe should be in jail and ACORN should still be in business? Am I reading you correctly?



I don't know who either of those are, and I'm pretty sure I don't care.
 
2012-09-19 09:25:00 PM

Some Bass Playing Guy: Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?

It's not a different set of opinions. The GOP is a cancer on the American landscape. And seriously, you claim to be a centrist leaning right and you're using term leftist? Here's a clue: the Democrats are hardly left much less hard left enough to be considered leftist. Obama, of anything is slightly left of center.

The reason people are happy that the GOP appears to be self destructing is because people want the GOP to eject the teabaggers and other hard right elements and become the party of conservatives again.

You don't like Romney or the extreme right-wing nutjobs. Neither do I. but I still think that some counter to extreme leftist crap is needed: If everyone in congress agreed with one ideal, and that ideal kept pushing further and further left, you'd have no one intervening to even slow the progress down.

There is very little "extreme leftist" anything. And nobody thinks there should't be a counterbalance. The problem is that the current GOP is destructive.

Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally. But since common sense and reason is anathema to modern politics, the best we can do is to elect only a bare majority from one side or the other so that neither side can get too crazy with the bullshiat.

Hey! Look! it's a Fark Independent.


I agree, though pelosi and a few other wingnuts I've met have been pretty far afield to the left.
 
2012-09-19 09:25:44 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Senate Mutant Ninny Turtle


+ one internets for you!
 
2012-09-19 09:25:47 PM
McConnel , you douche, why are you ignoring the 47% who pay no fed income tax? Give them money and listen to them dammit.
 
2012-09-19 09:26:06 PM

The Muthaship: TOSViolation: Did you forget what site you're on? Seriously? You want wit and intelligence? I think you got lost.

Take a compliment when it's given with grace.


The ghetto is how you live, not where you live : )
 
2012-09-19 09:27:23 PM

amquelbettamin: If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.


And do you think that it is particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax the production or consumption of goods?

Look, the "double taxation" canard is ridiculous because we tax virtually each and every transaction other than charity and a handful of government sponsored programs to either compensate people or provide social protection. The fact that you have to pay money on profits you make regardless of if the profits were from your labor, your money, your intellectual property, or simply a windfall. It sucks, but we do give an incentive to invest for those who choose to in the form of lower tax rates. Would you say "I got my paycheck and went and bought a lottery ticket, why am I double taxed on my winnings?"

Where is that Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon when you need it?
 
2012-09-19 09:27:23 PM

jmr61: This is what Mitt Rmoney ACTUALLY believes:


He believes that Jesus Christ is Satan's brother.
He believes that God lives near a planet called "Kolob."
He believes in baptizing dead people.
He believes that Jesus is married to a goddess wife.
He believes that The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
He believes that it was impossible for Negroes to go to Heaven before 1978.
He believes that Jesus has children from his wife or wives.
He believes that he is going to become a god.
He believes he will own his own personal planet after he dies.
He believes the real Christian God is not eternal but rather that He was once a man on some other planet besides Earth!
He believes he needs to wear magical underwear created by Mormons and he is never to take it off unless he is bathing.
He believes it is a sin to drink anything containing caffeine. And that even includes True American™ drinks like Coca-Cola!
He believes children between the ages of 18-21 should wear name badges, ride bicycles and always smile.


......and he's an idiot.



WTF does any of that matter?

Does he have a valid birth certificate?
Will he make my 401k have some money left in it when I reach retirement age?

All I know is that the current administration seems more like a reality TV show cast.
 
2012-09-19 09:27:45 PM

FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.


The problem is that you have a shiat load of people who dont disagree with what was said, so if you are far left then it seems great but the problem is that obama may very well lose this election because more people believe what you feel is blowing up their campaign.

I hate both guys personally, obama is doing nothing to stop the economy's slide while promoting more government spending and romney is part of management I grow to hate, those who hire decent people then take all the credit for what works and hes too close to the religious nutbags for my taste.

He is right that the only way to fix the economy is to let people make their own money instead of just giving out more government funds, that cycle will kill the economy and make us a 3rd world nation in less than a generation.
 
2012-09-19 09:27:54 PM

RepealThe22nd: ivan: He will make DAMN SURE Obama does NOT become a three-term president.

Hopefully he'll fail in that too.


You WOULD say that.
 
2012-09-19 09:29:33 PM

SouthParkCon: Oh look another hit piece on all things non-Progressive dropped right on the main page. *Shock*

Keep that hope and spare change alive because the Magical O doesn't have the new car smell he did back in '08.


Didn't take long for the "butthurt" deflectors to chime in.
 
2012-09-19 09:29:54 PM

steamingpile: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

The problem is that you have a shiat load of people who dont disagree with what was said, so if you are far left then it seems great but the problem is that obama may very well lose this election because more people believe what you feel is blowing up their campaign.

I hate both guys personally, obama is doing nothing to stop the economy's slide while promoting more government spending and romney is part of management I grow to hate, those who hire decent people then take all the credit for what works and hes too close to the religious nutbags for my taste.

He is right that the only way to fix the economy is to let people make their own money instead of just giving out more government funds, that cycle will kill the economy and make us a 3rd world nation in less than a generation.



I think enough people have enough hate for Obama that Adolf's ghost could win this year's election.
 
2012-09-19 09:30:06 PM

amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: coyo: Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.

If we're including every sort of tax to try to claim that the existence of such taxes are what Smith meant when he suggested a progressive taxation system I should make you aware that when factoring in all taxes people pay on average about the same percent of their income in taxes regardless of income level. Plus the fact that you bring up long term capital gains taxes as a tax that unduly burdens high income individuals shows you don't quite get percentages (hint: it is more profitable to let your money do the work for you after a certain income level.)

If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.




So why don't you believe that it should be taxed again via capital gains? Because that benefits you? You already are double taxed when you consider sales tax.

You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50,000 that everybody makes in a year. Yes, all income : capital gains, inheritance, christmas bonus. Also remove the exemption from churches from paying taxes.
 
2012-09-19 09:31:01 PM
I would consider Barack Obama a black, well-educated, Republican candidate without an unreasonable since of entitlement if this was any time between 1896-1964
 
2012-09-19 09:31:23 PM

TOSViolation: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

Even though you did not provide a link to the text of the law that was broken, I am sure you double and triple-checked the entire statute to make sure the taping met all of the requirements of an illegal act, lest you mislead us, right?


Nope, but I did RTFA. I don't really care what the law says, and I don't care what you think it says either. Neither of us are lawyers. If we were, we'd be sitting on a beach, sipping mai tais instead of wasting time on Fark.


I vehemently disagree with your statement and might even suggest it reeks of treachery. There is NO reason we cannot sip mai tais on a beach while wasting time on Fark. My only hope for you is that you can convince the resort you are at to extend their wifi down to the water.
 
2012-09-19 09:31:51 PM
I think people are tired of buying the leader of the free world via horsesh*t like "he seems like a nice person", "well, if nothing else, he's certainly different" and "his wife is pretty". Sh*t got way to expensive for the prom queen contest a while ago.
 
2012-09-19 09:32:52 PM
sense, even
 
2012-09-19 09:33:34 PM

amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: coyo: Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.

If we're including every sort of tax to try to claim that the existence of such taxes are what Smith meant when he suggested a progressive taxation system I should make you aware that when factoring in all taxes people pay on average about the same percent of their income in taxes regardless of income level. Plus the fact that you bring up long term capital gains taxes as a tax that unduly burdens high income individuals shows you don't quite get percentages (hint: it is more profitable to let your money do the work for you after a certain income level.)

If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.


I'd like to see a financial transaction tax. Just a tiny fraction of a percent on every stock trade would generate huge revenue and cut down on speculation.
 
2012-09-19 09:34:35 PM

TOSViolation: jmr61: This is what Mitt Rmoney ACTUALLY believes:



Does he have a valid birth certificate?
Will he make my 401k have some money left in it when I reach retirement age?

All I know is that the current administration seems more like a reality TV show cast.


I have no idea why you would think that about the administration. You probably have no idea either, not that it matters.

If Mitt gets in, he will institute policies that will allow the rich to suck the wealth out of the economy far faster than they put in any wealth. When you take out far more than you put in, you are a winner. Romney is a big winner in that game and he wants to go for the grand prize. 

Mitt has never contributed anything to the economy beyond what he took out of it for himself.
 
2012-09-19 09:35:47 PM

coyo: amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: coyo: Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :

The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

Which is pretty much exactly what happens. Property taxes luxury taxes capital gains taxes you name it.

If we're including every sort of tax to try to claim that the existence of such taxes are what Smith meant when he suggested a progressive taxation system I should make you aware that when factoring in all taxes people pay on average about the same percent of their income in taxes regardless of income level. Plus the fact that you bring up long term capital gains taxes as a tax that unduly burdens high income individuals shows you don't quite get percentages (hint: it is more profitable to let your money do the work for you after a certain income level.)

If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.



So why don't you believe that it should be taxed again via capital gains? Because that benefits you? You already are double taxed when you consider sales tax.

You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50, ...



That's stupid. Taxes should not be based on mostly meaningless hard numbers like 50k. Taxes should be flat. I agree with that. However, if there is going to be a minimum, untaxed amount, it should be based on real-world metrics of survival needs. Depending on the economy, environmental factors, etc. $50k could be too high or too low. The price of a gallon of milk could jump to $10, then fall to $2. I'm not the omniscient super-emperor of the world, but I feel like there is a better way to calculate fair tax amounts.

There are all of these "mark of the beast" fanatics and conspiracy theorists who are against everything down to the simple grocery store customer reward cards, but those are the types of things that could help with fair tax calculations. The world is screwed up all around. I don't think anyone can save it, but it's nice to see when people honestly try.
 
2012-09-19 09:36:16 PM

jmr61: This is what Mitt Rmoney ACTUALLY believes:


He believes that Jesus Christ is Satan's brother.
He believes that God lives near a planet called "Kolob."
He believes in baptizing dead people.
He believes that Jesus is married to a goddess wife.
He believes that The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
He believes that it was impossible for Negroes to go to Heaven before 1978.
He believes that Jesus has children from his wife or wives.
He believes that he is going to become a god.
He believes he will own his own personal planet after he dies.
He believes the real Christian God is not eternal but rather that He was once a man on some other planet besides Earth!
He believes he needs to wear magical underwear created by Mormons and he is never to take it off unless he is bathing.
He believes it is a sin to drink anything containing caffeine. And that even includes True American™ drinks like Coca-Cola!
He believes children between the ages of 18-21 should wear name badges, ride bicycles and always smile.


......and he's an idiot.


This song from The Book Of Mormon musical covers many of those.
 
2012-09-19 09:36:45 PM

steamingpile: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

The problem is that you have a shiat load of people who dont disagree with what was said, so if you are far left then it seems great but the problem is that obama may very well lose this election because more people believe what you feel is blowing up their campaign.

I hate both guys personally, obama is doing nothing to stop the economy's slide while promoting more government spending and romney is part of management I grow to hate, those who hire decent people then take all the credit for what works and hes too close to the religious nutbags for my taste.

He is right that the only way to fix the economy is to let people make their own money instead of just giving out more government funds, that cycle will kill the economy and make us a 3rd world nation in less than a generation.


That's not incorrect...but how? Even in good economies, 80% of all small businesses fail within 3 years. People have been laid off over the last 20 years, and the jobs outsourced, lost to mechanization or computerization, or just eliminated as businesses and companies learned to do without.

Most people want to work, and would be happy to work if only someone would hire them. But businesses can't and won't hire people they just don't need: If one guy can do all the floors with an electric floor buffer, why should the boss hire three more to do it with mops & buckets? The only thing that would be worse for the economy than having lots of people loafing around on unemployment is a lot of people loafing around an actual job getting paid for loafing. Nothing breeds on the job resentment and reduced morale like knowing you don't have to work to get paid. We saw that in, for instance, the auto lines of the 1970's. when workers weren't really needed but union contracts kept them from being fired. The next thing was that quality declined, morale plummeted, and absenteeism and work related injuries (and related fraud) skyrocketed.

The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.
 
2012-09-19 09:37:37 PM

coyo: TOSViolation: jmr61: This is what Mitt Rmoney ACTUALLY believes:



Does he have a valid birth certificate?
Will he make my 401k have some money left in it when I reach retirement age?

All I know is that the current administration seems more like a reality TV show cast.

I have no idea why you would think that about the administration. You probably have no idea either, not that it matters.

If Mitt gets in, he will institute policies that will allow the rich to suck the wealth out of the economy far faster than they put in any wealth. When you take out far more than you put in, you are a winner. Romney is a big winner in that game and he wants to go for the grand prize. 

Mitt has never contributed anything to the economy beyond what he took out of it for himself.



Well, at least someone will be well off. Obama just wants everyone to be broke and homeless.
 
2012-09-19 09:37:51 PM
images.politico.com

I FARKING despise these questions about Romney,he thought. Time to beat a hasty retreat.



30 minutes later.....

cache.gawkerassets.com 


DAMN IT! They're gaining on me!
 
2012-09-19 09:38:48 PM

Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.

And do you think that it is particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax the production or consumption of goods?

Look, the "double taxation" canard is ridiculous because we tax virtually each and every transaction other than charity and a handful of government sponsored programs to either compensate people or provide social protection. The fact that you have to pay money on profits you make regardless of if the profits were from your labor, your money, your intellectual property, or simply a windfall. It sucks, but we do give an incentive to invest for those who choose to in the form of lower tax rates. Would you say "I got my paycheck and went and bought a lottery ticket, why am I double taxed on my winnings?"

Where is that Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon when you need it?


Don't go that route.

If you buy a stock for $100, get dividends from it of $50, and then sell it for $100, you only pay taxes on the dividend portion. That means you only get taxed once on the $150.

The IRS only taxes you once on the money you get. You might get taxed on it and somebody else might get taxed on it, but that's expected. If I buy a hamburger, I pay income tax on the money and the burger flipper pays income tax on the money.
 
2012-09-19 09:39:48 PM

steamingpile: He is right that the only way to fix the economy is to let people make their own money instead of just giving out more government funds, that cycle will kill the economy and make us a 3rd world nation in less than a generation.


Do you not realize that the set of "people who do not pay income taxes" is NOT equivalent to a set of "people who are leeching off of government funds"? 

You'd have to be stupid not to realize that right away...so, I guess your point about many people liking Money Boo Boo's statement might actually be true. It's not reflected in the latest polling (a plurality view Money Boo Boo's statement negatively) -- but I never discount the Republican party's ability to mislead people.
 
2012-09-19 09:41:06 PM

Gyrfalcon: The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.


There are ASTOUDINGLY easy answers. Tons of them laying around like so much lint on a nylon sock. They do not, however, service the present "GIMMIE GIMMIE AND F*CK YOU!" mentality.
 
2012-09-19 09:41:44 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: amquelbettamin: Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: coyo: Or those who follow Adam Smith's philosophy :


You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50, ...

That's stupid. Taxes should not be based on mostly meaningless hard numbers like 50k. Taxes should be flat. I agree with that. However, if there is going to be a minimum, untaxed amount, it should be based on real-world metrics of survival needs. Depending on the economy, environmental factors, etc. $50k could be too high or too low. The price of a gallon of milk could jump to $10, then fall to $2. I'm not the omniscient super-emperor of the world, but I feel like there is a better way to calculate fair tax amounts.

There are all of these "mark of the beast" fanatics and conspiracy theorists who are against everything down to the simple grocery store customer reward cards, but those are the types of things that could help with fair tax calculations. The world is screwed up all around. I don't think anyone can save it, but it's nice to see when people honestly try.


Yes, I am guilty of pulling 50k out of my ass. Certainly there are values that are local maxima on the best of breed scale. I'm not being rigorous on the number but I would want to pick a number that allows you to have a comfortable life even if you are at the minimum to pay taxes. And sure, you'd get those converting their money to gold and lima beans; I wouldn't worry that they'd derail things.
 
2012-09-19 09:42:13 PM

TOSViolation: Well, at least someone will be well off. Obama just wants everyone to be broke and homeless.



Dear FBI, Secret Service, DHS, NSA, and anyone else it may concern,

The above linked comment should have read "Obama just SEEMS to want..." In no way was I implying a statement of pure fact or attempting to defame the president. That was purely a statement of opinion.

Sincerely,
A Registered Voter
 
2012-09-19 09:42:46 PM

Kit Fister:
Now, again, i hate the ultra-right as much as you seem to, and I hate the ultra left equally.


I know who I'm voting for!
 
2012-09-19 09:43:12 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: TOSViolation: jmr61: This is what Mitt Rmoney ACTUALLY believes:



Does he have a valid birth certificate?
Will he make my 401k have some money left in it when I reach retirement age?

All I know is that the current administration seems more like a reality TV show cast.

I have no idea why you would think that about the administration. You probably have no idea either, not that it matters.

If Mitt gets in, he will institute policies that will allow the rich to suck the wealth out of the economy far faster than they put in any wealth. When you take out far more than you put in, you are a winner. Romney is a big winner in that game and he wants to go for the grand prize. 

Mitt has never contributed anything to the economy beyond what he took out of it for himself.


Well, at least someone will be well off. Obama just wants everyone to be broke and homeless.




Cue the rimshot and the wah wah wah trumpets. Care to expand on your assertion, or are you all out of neurons?
 
2012-09-19 09:44:43 PM
Don't forget Romney wears Magic Underwear, he might pull a Trick outta his ass.
 
2012-09-19 09:45:52 PM

coyo: You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50,000 that everybody makes in a year. Yes, all income : capital gains, inheritance, christmas bonus. Also remove the exemption from churches from paying taxes.


So you're far to the right of noted left wing radical Milton Friedman, who suggested a flat tax that had a standard of living exemption that if a household did not meet would actually get a check from the government for the difference (look up the "negative income tax"). Yeah, nobody was stupid enough to go for that idea.

The crazy thing is that the "Austrian School" has become some sort of pop psychology, where even Fredrick Hayek quotes are completely rejected as Marxism at this point by people who think they have it figured out from one Intro to Microeconomics course under their belt.
/majored in Economics
//Intro classes turned me into Libertarian
///Grad-level courses that covered econometrics, labor and health economics, and market inefficiencies pushed me firmly into what I'd like to think is Rockefeller Republican territory but makes me seem like a hardcore leftist to the current bunch of crazies in the party.
 
2012-09-19 09:46:22 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: TOSViolation: jmr61: This is what Mitt Rmoney ACTUALLY believes:



Does he have a valid birth certificate?
Will he make my 401k have some money left in it when I reach retirement age?

All I know is that the current administration seems more like a reality TV show cast.

I have no idea why you would think that about the administration. You probably have no idea either, not that it matters.

If Mitt gets in, he will institute policies that will allow the rich to suck the wealth out of the economy far faster than they put in any wealth. When you take out far more than you put in, you are a winner. Romney is a big winner in that game and he wants to go for the grand prize. 

Mitt has never contributed anything to the economy beyond what he took out of it for himself.


Well, at least someone will be well off. Obama just wants everyone to be broke and homeless.


Can't say I know what exactly Obama wants, but Mitt is actively working to make everyone else broke and homeless.
 
2012-09-19 09:46:32 PM

Gestankfaust: Indubitably: Gestankfaust: Was just gonna say.... "that what all Dems do when they have no rhetoric or lies to spew"

But then I saw the asshattery spewed by you people after....so i quit

Typical Republican tactic: deny discourse.

lol...you make discourse you asshat. And I DO DENY YOU...FARKwad


See what gud that does you...

P.S. It's on. Wit my end, so find yourn.
 
2012-09-19 09:46:44 PM

coyo: Yes, I am guilty of pulling 50k out of my ass. Certainly there are values that are local maxima on the best of breed scale. I'm not being rigorous on the number but I would want to pick a number that allows you to have a comfortable life even if you are at the minimum to pay taxes. And sure, you'd get those converting their money to gold and lima beans; I wouldn't worry that they'd derail things.



I was saying that I think it might be interesting if taxes were calculated in real time. Would it open us up to "ZOMG tha gubmint is trackin me!11!1"? Maybe. Who knows?

I just know that I'm paying for schools that are no longer of any use to me. If I don't have kids attending school, then why should I pay taxes to support them? If the families of the students can't fund the schools, then maybe they shouldn't have so many kids.

I'd rather my tax dollars be diverted to things that actually benefit me, like the fire department or police. Use my money to fund pot hole repairs instead of some useless tween douchebag with an iPhone, texting instead of learning anything.
 
2012-09-19 09:46:44 PM

TOSViolation: TOSViolation: Well, at least someone will be well off. Obama just wants everyone to be broke and homeless.


Dear FBI, Secret Service, DHS, NSA, and anyone else it may concern,

The above linked comment should have read "Obama just SEEMS to want..." In no way was I implying a statement of pure fact or attempting to defame the president. That was purely a statement of opinion.

Sincerely,
A Registered Voter


You don't SEEM to have a very tight grasp on reality.
 
2012-09-19 09:47:08 PM
Forget Mitchy-boy, just watching TOS implode here and now is a great example of the right-wing-derp defense.
Please, carry on!
 
2012-09-19 09:48:25 PM

bunner: Gyrfalcon: The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.

There are ASTOUDINGLY easy answers. Tons of them laying around like so much lint on a nylon sock. They do not, however, service the present "GIMMIE GIMMIE AND F*CK YOU!" mentality.


bunner, I count you as friend, amirite?
 
2012-09-19 09:48:34 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: TOSViolation: Well, at least someone will be well off. Obama just wants everyone to be broke and homeless.


Dear FBI, Secret Service, DHS, NSA, and anyone else it may concern,

The above linked comment should have read "Obama just SEEMS to want..." In no way was I implying a statement of pure fact or attempting to defame the president. That was purely a statement of opinion.

Sincerely,
A Registered Voter

You don't SEEM to have a very tight grasp on reality.



What does that even look like. Do you run around, hands held high, holding onto some imaginary rope to keep yourself sane? That sounds pretty crazy to me.
 
2012-09-19 09:48:57 PM
www.starscolor.com
 
2012-09-19 09:50:12 PM

TOSViolation: eraser8: TOSViolation: TOSViolation: Well, at least someone will be well off. Obama just wants everyone to be broke and homeless.


Dear FBI, Secret Service, DHS, NSA, and anyone else it may concern,

The above linked comment should have read "Obama just SEEMS to want..." In no way was I implying a statement of pure fact or attempting to defame the president. That was purely a statement of opinion.

Sincerely,
A Registered Voter

You don't SEEM to have a very tight grasp on reality.


What does that even look like. Do you run around, hands held high, holding onto some imaginary rope to keep yourself sane? That sounds pretty crazy to me.


Your language is abusive, and am I surprised?
 
2012-09-19 09:50:58 PM

Tennozan: Forget Mitchy-boy, just watching TOS implode here and now is a great example of the right-wing-derp defense.
Please, carry on!



Defense? Defend what? What Romney said was asinine. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying that SAYING it out loud was stupid.

I still think Homer Simpson would better for the country than another four years of Obama.
 
2012-09-19 09:51:07 PM

Indubitably: bunner: Gyrfalcon: The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.

There are ASTOUDINGLY easy answers. Tons of them laying around like so much lint on a nylon sock. They do not, however, service the present "GIMMIE GIMMIE AND F*CK YOU!" mentality.

bunner, I count you as friend, amirite?


I know I do, you. Thing is, what I'm talking about is a very simple process in where you step back until the broader scope emerges and act accordingly. Minutiae keeps debt farmers shi*ting in high cotton. Obvious truths do not.
 
2012-09-19 09:51:20 PM

MikeMc: [www.starscolor.com image 278x353]


Royalty?

P.S. Not a penny received.
 
2012-09-19 09:51:34 PM

Grungehamster: coyo: You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50,000 that everybody makes in a year. Yes, all income : capital gains, inheritance, christmas bonus. Also remove the exemption from churches from paying taxes.

So you're far to the right of noted left wing radical Milton Friedman, who suggested a flat tax that had a standard of living exemption that if a household did not meet would actually get a check from the government for the difference (look up the "negative income tax"). Yeah, nobody was stupid enough to go for that idea.

The crazy thing is that the "Austrian School" has become some sort of pop psychology, where even Fredrick Hayek quotes are completely rejected as Marxism at this point by people who think they have it figured out from one Intro to Microeconomics course under their belt.
/majored in Economics
//Intro classes turned me into Libertarian
///Grad-level courses that covered econometrics, labor and health economics, and market inefficiencies pushed me firmly into what I'd like to think is Rockefeller Republican territory but makes me seem like a hardcore leftist to the current bunch of crazies in the party.




Sounds like you've studied this quite a bit. What would you like to see be put in place, if anything?
 
2012-09-19 09:52:15 PM

bunner: Indubitably: bunner: Gyrfalcon: The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.

There are ASTOUDINGLY easy answers. Tons of them laying around like so much lint on a nylon sock. They do not, however, service the present "GIMMIE GIMMIE AND F*CK YOU!" mentality.

bunner, I count you as friend, amirite?

I know I do, you. Thing is, what I'm talking about is a very simple process in where you step back until the broader scope emerges and act accordingly. Minutiae keeps debt farmers shi*ting in high cotton. Obvious truths do not.


See?
 
2012-09-19 09:52:54 PM

coyo: Grungehamster: coyo: You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50,000 that everybody makes in a year. Yes, all income : capital gains, inheritance, christmas bonus. Also remove the exemption from churches from paying taxes.

So you're far to the right of noted left wing radical Milton Friedman, who suggested a flat tax that had a standard of living exemption that if a household did not meet would actually get a check from the government for the difference (look up the "negative income tax"). Yeah, nobody was stupid enough to go for that idea.

The crazy thing is that the "Austrian School" has become some sort of pop psychology, where even Fredrick Hayek quotes are completely rejected as Marxism at this point by people who think they have it figured out from one Intro to Microeconomics course under their belt.
/majored in Economics
//Intro classes turned me into Libertarian
///Grad-level courses that covered econometrics, labor and health economics, and market inefficiencies pushed me firmly into what I'd like to think is Rockefeller Republican territory but makes me seem like a hardcore leftist to the current bunch of crazies in the party.



Sounds like you've studied this quite a bit. What would you like to see be put in place, if anything?



I just have to ask. Are you on a phone that screws with your replies, or are you purposefully indenting?
 
2012-09-19 09:53:15 PM

Wild Eyed and Wicked: A family member is a high ranking associate in the Republican party - I can hardly wait for Thanksgiving lol. It seems that Romney may give me as much as Sarah Palin did to mock him with. They are the gift that keeps on giving anymore...

Excuse any typos because the touchpad does not like my bandaged thumb...damned barb wire.


I've stopped talking to mine about politics unless they start it. I'd have strangled them otherwise. They have no sense of politeness or common debate courtesy--it's insane trying to hold a conversation.
 
2012-09-19 09:53:44 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: Yes, I am guilty of pulling 50k out of my ass. Certainly there are values that are local maxima on the best of breed scale. I'm not being rigorous on the number but I would want to pick a number that allows you to have a comfortable life even if you are at the minimum to pay taxes. And sure, you'd get those converting their money to gold and lima beans; I wouldn't worry that they'd derail things.


I was saying that I think it might be interesting if taxes were calculated in real time. Would it open us up to "ZOMG tha gubmint is trackin me!11!1"? Maybe. Who knows?

I just know that I'm paying for schools that are no longer of any use to me. If I don't have kids attending school, then why should I pay taxes to support them? If the families of the students can't fund the schools, then maybe they shouldn't have so many kids.

I'd rather my tax dollars be diverted to things that actually benefit me, like the fire department or police. Use my money to fund pot hole repairs instead of some useless tween douchebag with an iPhone, texting instead of learning anything.




Really? I would happily contribute far more towards the schools as having to deal with even a few less stupid people in a day would be luxurious to me.
 
2012-09-19 09:53:56 PM

TOSViolation: Defense? Defend what? What Romney said was asinine. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying that SAYING it out loud was stupid.


Well, it ISN'T true.

Of course, if you accept one reality, your entire fantasy world might collapse. So, I understand your hesitation.
 
2012-09-19 09:54:07 PM

Indubitably: bunner: Indubitably: bunner: Gyrfalcon: The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.

There are ASTOUDINGLY easy answers. Tons of them laying around like so much lint on a nylon sock. They do not, however, service the present "GIMMIE GIMMIE AND F*CK YOU!" mentality.

bunner, I count you as friend, amirite?

I know I do, you. Thing is, what I'm talking about is a very simple process in where you step back until the broader scope emerges and act accordingly. Minutiae keeps debt farmers shi*ting in high cotton. Obvious truths do not.

See?


I love thee, however your wordage is obtuse. Poetic even. I still think youm should buy one of my paintings. Maybe?
 
2012-09-19 09:54:39 PM
I am going to put forth what everybody should write in on their ballot in Nov. You wont, but here it is. "DEAR POLITICIANS. PLEASE STOP SHI*TING WHERE WE EAT. - THE ELECTORATE". Ta da.
 
2012-09-19 09:55:22 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: Grungehamster: coyo: You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50,000 that everybody makes in a year. Yes, all income : capital gains, inheritance, christmas bonus. Also remove the exemption from churches from paying taxes.

So you're far to the right of noted left wing radical Milton Friedman, who suggested a flat tax that had a standard of living exemption that if a household did not meet would actually get a check from the government for the difference (look up the "negative income tax"). Yeah, nobody was stupid enough to go for that idea.

The crazy thing is that the "Austrian School" has become some sort of pop psychology, where even Fredrick Hayek quotes are completely rejected as Marxism at this point by people who think they have it figured out from one Intro to Microeconomics course under their belt.
/majored in Economics
//Intro classes turned me into Libertarian
///Grad-level courses that covered econometrics, labor and health economics, and market inefficiencies pushed me firmly into what I'd like to think is Rockefeller Republican territory but makes me seem like a hardcore leftist to the current bunch of crazies in the party.



Sounds like you've studied this quite a bit. What would you like to see be put in place, if anything?


I just have to ask. Are you on a phone that screws with your replies, or are you purposefully indenting?



emacs macro
 
2012-09-19 09:55:36 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: bunner: Indubitably: bunner: Gyrfalcon: The truth is, there are no easy answers from either the left or the right. It may be that we hit the end of our imperial cycle even sooner than the Romans did, and without a plague to kick us the rest of the way.

There are ASTOUDINGLY easy answers. Tons of them laying around like so much lint on a nylon sock. They do not, however, service the present "GIMMIE GIMMIE AND F*CK YOU!" mentality.

bunner, I count you as friend, amirite?

I know I do, you. Thing is, what I'm talking about is a very simple process in where you step back until the broader scope emerges and act accordingly. Minutiae keeps debt farmers shi*ting in high cotton. Obvious truths do not.

See?

I love thee, however your wordage is obtuse. Poetic even. I still think youm should buy one of my paintings. Maybe?


I realize art after death is more profitable, but art made is more; *hint-hint*
 
2012-09-19 09:56:46 PM

Indubitably: I realize art after death is more profitable, but art made is more; *hint-hint*


I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still. You got a website?
 
2012-09-19 09:57:40 PM

bunner: Indubitably: I realize art after death is more profitable, but art made is more; *hint-hint*

I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still. You got a website?


Nope.

I got Fark...
 
2012-09-19 09:58:31 PM
Can you e-mail me some snaps?
 
2012-09-19 09:58:40 PM

bunner: I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still.


When I first read your comment, it was dirty in my head.
 
2012-09-19 09:59:59 PM
By the way, some weenieburger is going to go pissing and moaning to the admins any minute now because "Z0mG, he is hij4xor1ng teh threadzor!" so, I'll check in later about this.
 
2012-09-19 10:01:55 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: Defense? Defend what? What Romney said was asinine. I'm not saying it isn't true. I'm just saying that SAYING it out loud was stupid.

Well, it ISN'T true.

Of course, if you accept one reality, your entire fantasy world might collapse. So, I understand your hesitation.



We are living in a fantasy world. The fact that I can drink a cup of coffee for only $2 at Starbucks proves it.

If everyone involved in getting that cup of coffee to me, who does their job to the best of their ability, was allowed to live the same lifestyle that I do, then that cup of coffee would probably cost $50 or more.

We are living on the backs of slave labor. Slavery was not abolished. It was just shifted. Everything we think we have is an illusion.

Do I believe in Socialism? The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature. It's our animal instinct to ensure that our own offspring have it better than everyone else. That's just how our survival instinct is supposed to work.

I think it would be a perfect world where every necessary job function rewarded the employee equally. Maybe it takes more effort and intelligence to become a surgeon, but I really don't want to work with sewage. If you promised the top surgeon his exact same salary to take a nurse's job of cleaning bedpans, I highly doubt he'd go for it. He'd probably take a 1% pay cut to avoid that.

The thing is that I just don't care anymore because we're all going to die soon enough. In the grand scheme of things, as the Earth gets swallowed by the Sun, none of this will have ever mattered at all.
 
2012-09-19 10:06:39 PM

Grungehamster: amquelbettamin: If my after-tax income earns a dividend after reinvestment into our economy I don't believe that dividend should be taxed the second time via Capital gains. I also don't think it's particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax returns on invested capital.

And do you think that it is particularly good for a capitalist economy to tax the production or consumption of goods?

Look, the "double taxation" canard is ridiculous because we tax virtually each and every transaction other than charity and a handful of government sponsored programs to either compensate people or provide social protection. The fact that you have to pay money on profits you make regardless of if the profits were from your labor, your money, your intellectual property, or simply a windfall. It sucks, but we do give an incentive to invest for those who choose to in the form of lower tax rates. Would you say "I got my paycheck and went and bought a lottery ticket, why am I double taxed on my winnings?"

Where is that Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon when you need it?


I guess we finally distilled our exact differences. It seems the major dispute is over capital gains. I strongly believe that the more capital is free flowing through the system the easier to start businesses and to expand businesses. Major capital purchases such as building new buildings, hiring new personnel, building a new factory are all things that require an awful lot of capital. The 17% rate now does not disincentivize capital investments, but bringing the rates up to income tax levels may.

The attack on Romney's 17% rate of taxation seems to be an attack on capital gains. I imagine the recipients of his capital were quite happy for the availability of that money.

I don't have much more to say on this matter. I think that you're very well informed and educated I think we just simply have a difference on this one aspect.

/I'm out but will read for 10 more minutes without replying
 
2012-09-19 10:06:45 PM

bunner: By the way, some weenieburger is going to go pissing and moaning to the admins any minute now because "Z0mG, he is hij4xor1ng teh threadzor!" so, I'll check in later about this.


Better not.
 
2012-09-19 10:06:52 PM

eraser8: bunner: I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still.

When I first read your comment, it was dirty in my head.


If he did atm maybe he wouldn't be poor.
 
2012-09-19 10:07:02 PM

eraser8: You don't SEEM to have a very tight grasp on reality.


The Sheriff is near again. Expect epic amounts of butthurt over the next several weeks.
 
2012-09-19 10:08:35 PM

fusillade762: eraser8: bunner: I'm sort of poor, atm, but I do like to support artists who have to eat, still.

When I first read your comment, it was dirty in my head.

If he did atm maybe he wouldn't be poor.


It isn't all about money.

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: eraser8: You don't SEEM to have a very tight grasp on reality.

The Sheriff is near again. Expect epic amounts of butthurt over the next several weeks.


It still isn't.

P.S. At your peril.
 
2012-09-19 10:10:00 PM

FlashHarry: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.


Yes, I do not wish to get cocky either but I told my brother the other day that some of the best news I have heard is he and another person who always vote (R) are not voting this year for President because there is no one they want to vote for. There isn't even a lesser of 2 evils, just no vote. That's two less votes that would have gone to an intelligent (R) if the GOP wouldn't have been so stupid as to kick Huntsman and Johnson to the curb. Good.

/4 more years
 
2012-09-19 10:11:34 PM

my lip balm addiction: FlashHarry: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.

Yes, I do not wish to get cocky either but I told my brother the other day that some of the best news I have heard is he and another person who always vote (R) are not voting this year for President because there is no one they want to vote for. There isn't even a lesser of 2 evils, just no vote. That's two less votes that would have gone to an intelligent (R) if the GOP wouldn't have been so stupid as to kick Huntsman and Johnson to the curb. Good.

/4 more years



LOL! We won't make it past December 21st.
 
2012-09-19 10:14:12 PM

TOSViolation: my lip balm addiction: FlashHarry: RexTalionis: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

Don't get cocky. There's still 7 weeks left in this election.

oh, i know the dems can still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. but the past few weeks have been delicious, regardless.

Yes, I do not wish to get cocky either but I told my brother the other day that some of the best news I have heard is he and another person who always vote (R) are not voting this year for President because there is no one they want to vote for. There isn't even a lesser of 2 evils, just no vote. That's two less votes that would have gone to an intelligent (R) if the GOP wouldn't have been so stupid as to kick Huntsman and Johnson to the curb. Good.

/4 more years


LOL! We won't make it past December 21st.


Um,
 
2012-09-19 10:19:58 PM

TOSViolation: Some Bass Playing Guy: Where did you get your GED in law, dumbass?


Do you even know what a GED is? Is your cat typing for you while you babble incoherently with your mouth stuck to your bong?


*facepalm*. The stupid. It burns.

Honestly, anyone who's been around here for even a little while knows what the GED in ... thing means.

What cracks me up is that nobody is buying your pathetic attempt to deflect the discussion away from what Romney said.
 
2012-09-19 10:22:01 PM

TOSViolation: The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature.


It's absolutely false to say that capitalism is in our nature. It is not. It never has been. It probably never will be.

There's a reason it didn't arise as a mature philosophy until the mid-18th Century. And, there's a reason the Republican party has recently been assaulting capitalism at every turn. It's the same reason that you cite for the impossibility of socialism: greed.

You might think I made a mistake by pointing out the Republican hostility to capitalism. But, I'm completely serious. For capitalism to work, choices must be, essentially, free. That means, regulation must be in place to prevent greedy people from colluding and forming cartels and monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade. As Adam Smith, known by many as the father of capitalism wrote, "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." It also means that if a person chooses to sell his labor, he should be able to negotiate a fair price for it.

But, Republicans say, "hang the regulations that keep capitalism functional." Get rid of the unions that allow workers to negotiate on a level playing field. And, why shouldn't they? Capitalism is an inherently democratic (not referring to the Democratic party, here) concept and Republicans are not democrats. Ditto for unions. Thomas Jefferson could have been talking about the modern Republican party when he wrote that we, "now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a next best blessing to the monarchy of their first aim, and perhaps the surest stepping-stone to it."
 
2012-09-19 10:22:17 PM

TOSViolation: coyo: Yes, I am guilty of pulling 50k out of my ass. Certainly there are values that are local maxima on the best of breed scale. I'm not being rigorous on the number but I would want to pick a number that allows you to have a comfortable life even if you are at the minimum to pay taxes. And sure, you'd get those converting their money to gold and lima beans; I wouldn't worry that they'd derail things.


I was saying that I think it might be interesting if taxes were calculated in real time. Would it open us up to "ZOMG tha gubmint is trackin me!11!1"? Maybe. Who knows?

I just know that I'm paying for schools that are no longer of any use to me. If I don't have kids attending school, then why should I pay taxes to support them? If the families of the students can't fund the schools, then maybe they shouldn't have so many kids.

I'd rather my tax dollars be diverted to things that actually benefit me, like the fire department or police. Use my money to fund pot hole repairs instead of some useless tween douchebag with an iPhone, texting instead of learning anything.


Yeah, you're an idiot. But you're certainly entertaining arguing with everybody. Carry on.
 
2012-09-19 10:23:33 PM

coyo: Grungehamster: coyo: You know, I would be fine with a flat tax that taxes all income the same and exempts the first 50,000 that everybody makes in a year. Yes, all income : capital gains, inheritance, christmas bonus. Also remove the exemption from churches from paying taxes.

So you're far to the right of noted left wing radical Milton Friedman, who suggested a flat tax that had a standard of living exemption that if a household did not meet would actually get a check from the government for the difference (look up the "negative income tax"). Yeah, nobody was stupid enough to go for that idea.

The crazy thing is that the "Austrian School" has become some sort of pop psychology, where even Fredrick Hayek quotes are completely rejected as Marxism at this point by people who think they have it figured out from one Intro to Microeconomics course under their belt.
/majored in Economics
//Intro classes turned me into Libertarian
///Grad-level courses that covered econometrics, labor and health economics, and market inefficiencies pushed me firmly into what I'd like to think is Rockefeller Republican territory but makes me seem like a hardcore leftist to the current bunch of crazies in the party.



Sounds like you've studied this quite a bit. What would you like to see be put in place, if anything?


I'm mostly satisfied with the way things are set up now as far as what should and shouldn't be taxed. We need more revenue, but I'll fully admit estimating the optimal rates to obtain this is way out of my league. What I really want to see is the tax code simplified The Bowles-Simpson Plan actually had language to both cut marginal tax rates and remove the deductions in such a way that it would actually be revenue positive. It would likely hurt, but at least it would lead to more honest discussions of tax policy because marginal rates are horrible when trying to discuss the fairness of the system when effective rates are often radically different.

I'd like to think Romney's promise to do something similar had some weight but his explicitly outlining of rates that are much less progressive than Bush's tax cuts (Bush cut the bottom tax bracket by 5% and the top bracket by 4.6%; Romney promises to cut the bottom tax bracket by 2% and the top bracket by 7%) and his outright refusal to list what deductions he would eliminate to make it revenue neutral leads me to assume that the tax cuts will come with no changes to deductions in the best case ("they were lost in negotiations with Congress") and go after the big ticket deductions that everyone gets some benefit from [but still have to be trimmed at some point] but will leave the high income preferential deductions untouched simply because those are the ones that have strong lobbyist support and very little motivation to overturn.

The thing is that tax incentives are a REALLY effective way of conducting social policy in this country, partially because Republicans like the idea of letting people keep their money and Democrats like the idea of government encouraging certain economic behaviors through policy so they are easy to pass. The problem is that after a certain point you have, well, the US Tax Code: a massive document that is impossible to navigate and bears little relation to any simple guidelines you can outline, since there always seems to be another wrinkle.
 
2012-09-19 10:24:22 PM

Some Bass Playing Guy: TOSViolation: coyo: Yes, I am guilty of pulling 50k out of my ass. Certainly there are values that are local maxima on the best of breed scale. I'm not being rigorous on the number but I would want to pick a number that allows you to have a comfortable life even if you are at the minimum to pay taxes. And sure, you'd get those converting their money to gold and lima beans; I wouldn't worry that they'd derail things.


I was saying that I think it might be interesting if taxes were calculated in real time. Would it open us up to "ZOMG tha gubmint is trackin me!11!1"? Maybe. Who knows?

I just know that I'm paying for schools that are no longer of any use to me. If I don't have kids attending school, then why should I pay taxes to support them? If the families of the students can't fund the schools, then maybe they shouldn't have so many kids.

I'd rather my tax dollars be diverted to things that actually benefit me, like the fire department or police. Use my money to fund pot hole repairs instead of some useless tween douchebag with an iPhone, texting instead of learning anything.

Yeah, you're an idiot. But you're certainly entertaining arguing with everybody. Carry on.



Put down your iPhone, and do your homework, kid.
 
2012-09-19 10:24:27 PM

Kit Fister: FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.

I'll state up front that I tend to be pretty centrist in my vies, though i like to think I lean conservative on some things.

That being said, why is it glorious? Why is it at all a good thing for a group that represents a different set of opinions to self destruct? Do we WANT to have any possible counterbalance to people going too far off the liberal end of the scale to be disorganized and in disarray so they cannot offer that balancing weight against the extreme leftists?


Because said group isn't an actual opposition party. They simply represent a particular extreme of American politics. An opposition party, for example, would want some of the same things the administration in power wants, but achieved by different means.
 
2012-09-19 10:27:09 PM

SineSwiper: /also, why is this on the main page and not in Politics?


Are you high?
 
2012-09-19 10:28:14 PM

Any Pie Left: Senator turtle-man is in my opinion a traitor to the nation for his deliberate (and proudly publicly pre-announced) attempts to monkey-wrnech the US government since inauguration day, just to make things bad enough to make Obama a one-termer. He should DIAF and his cronies with him. There's loyal opposition, then there's farking with the US economy on a macro scale just to sway an election your way. Fark him with a rake SIDEWAYS. He's more un-American than most terrorists.


THIS (plus a little of my own)
 
2012-09-19 10:28:31 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature.

It's absolutely false to say that capitalism is in our nature. It is not. It never has been. It probably never will be.

There's a reason it didn't arise as a mature philosophy until the mid-18th Century. And, there's a reason the Republican party has recently been assaulting capitalism at every turn. It's the same reason that you cite for the impossibility of socialism: greed.

You might think I made a mistake by pointing out the Republican hostility to capitalism. But, I'm completely serious. For capitalism to work, choices must be, essentially, free. That means, regulation must be in place to prevent greedy people from colluding and forming cartels and monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade. As Adam Smith, known by many as the father of capitalism wrote, "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." It also means that if a person chooses to sell his labor, he should be able to negotiate a fair price for it.

But, Republicans say, "hang the regulations that keep capitalism functional." Get rid of the unions that allow workers to negotiate on a level playing field. And, why shouldn't they? Capitalism is an inherently democratic (not referring to the Democratic party, here) concept and Republicans are not democrats. Ditto for unions. Thomas Jefferson could have been talking about the modern Republican party when he wrote that we, "now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a ne ...



It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.
 
2012-09-19 10:29:50 PM

TOSViolation: eraser8: TOSViolation: The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature.

It's absolutely false to say that capitalism is in our nature. It is not. It never has been. It probably never will be.

There's a reason it didn't arise as a mature philosophy until the mid-18th Century. And, there's a reason the Republican party has recently been assaulting capitalism at every turn. It's the same reason that you cite for the impossibility of socialism: greed.

You might think I made a mistake by pointing out the Republican hostility to capitalism. But, I'm completely serious. For capitalism to work, choices must be, essentially, free. That means, regulation must be in place to prevent greedy people from colluding and forming cartels and monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade. As Adam Smith, known by many as the father of capitalism wrote, "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." It also means that if a person chooses to sell his labor, he should be able to negotiate a fair price for it.

But, Republicans say, "hang the regulations that keep capitalism functional." Get rid of the unions that allow workers to negotiate on a level playing field. And, why shouldn't they? Capitalism is an inherently democratic (not referring to the Democratic party, here) concept and Republicans are not democrats. Ditto for unions. Thomas Jefferson could have been talking about the modern Republican party when he wrote that we, "now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to ...


You rely too much on labelry, *tsk tsk*

Mind matters.
 
2012-09-19 10:32:17 PM

TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.


Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.
 
2012-09-19 10:32:31 PM

cptjeff: WTP 2: i thought i was the only one getting the monty reference
i see i was wrong
good on with the show

Nope, and now I have a medley of Spamalot stuck in my head, mostly the Finale.


Me? I have to push the pram a lot. =(
 
2012-09-19 10:32:47 PM

TOSViolation: Nope. No law degree of any sort.


No shiat.
 
2012-09-19 10:39:27 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.


Capital in the form of bank notes has no intrinsic value. It is, rather, simply IOUs and was ever thus and serves no purpose other that to facilitate commerce involving actual wealth. Guess what happens when 1% of the populous hoards it. Ah, ha ha. The greedheads will be hoist upon their own petards. T'was ever thus. Greed, you rube, is *not* good. Expansive and free motion of liquid capital amongst all strata of the populous is. Gordon Gecko was a cartoon character. So was Reagan. Suckers.
 
2012-09-19 10:40:22 PM
This reminds me of that TPM article that was critical of the White House for its lack of transparency and unwillingness of the President to answer questions to the Press Corps (the "so called" Libural Media reporters even whisper complaints about it).

Wait. No I don't. Because TPM is a biased mouth piece for one certain party, they would never write a negative article about their candidate.
 
2012-09-19 10:41:12 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.



Unchecked? Unchecked by another greedy person? That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff. That's the point.

The reason feudalism works is because of the weak and unambitious. That's sort of the same reason Capitalism works.

It's all just smoke and mirrors anyway. People are just like liquids of different densities poured into the same jar. Shake it up as many different ways as you want, and they're all going to settle the same way.

Economic systems only work if the political systems can enforce them adequately.
 
2012-09-19 10:41:49 PM

bunner: eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.

Capital in the form of bank notes has no intrinsic value. It is, rather, simply IOUs and was ever thus and serves no purpose other that to facilitate commerce involving actual wealth. Guess what happens when 1% of the populous hoards it. Ah, ha ha. The greedheads will be hoist upon their own petards. T'was ever thus. Greed, you rube, is *not* good. Expansive and free motion of liquid capital amongst all strata of the populous is. Gordon Gecko was a cartoon character. So was Reagan. Suckers.


I'm thinking, maybe, you meant to direct this to TOSViolation?
 
2012-09-19 10:42:32 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.


You don't need greed, having basic needs and an efficient way to encourage exchange of surplus commodities and/or labor for otherwise unobtainable goods and services is enough. One can engage in such trades without also being greedy. Is it at all sensible to say anytime you engage in exchanging excess goods (capital) for goods you lack is motivated primarily by greed? Isn't that extreme? Isn't having a legitimate and non-vicious desire for some good sufficient? Why must such transactions be regulated by the government, rather than the parties involved in the exchange themselves, in accord with basic moral virtues, moral rules, etc?

Obviously, many, many people are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards. But that's not a failure of an economic system, it's a failure of humanity.

Many, many, people, regardless of the economic and/or political system, are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards.It's not like getting rid of capitalism is going to magically change that. People will still want stuff, and too much of it, and will bend or break all law and morality to get it.



So how does Capitalism fail to work at all
 
2012-09-19 10:42:36 PM

eraser8: bunner: eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.

Capital in the form of bank notes has no intrinsic value. It is, rather, simply IOUs and was ever thus and serves no purpose other that to facilitate commerce involving actual wealth. Guess what happens when 1% of the populous hoards it. Ah, ha ha. The greedheads will be hoist upon their own petards. T'was ever thus. Greed, you rube, is *not* good. Expansive and free motion of liquid capital amongst all strata of the populous is. Gordon Gecko was a cartoon character. So was Reagan. Suckers.

I'm thinking, maybe, you meant to direct this to TOSViolation?


Actually, I did mean to. Sorry.
 
2012-09-19 10:47:18 PM
Any system of governance or financial facilitation is, or was, designed to serve the population it governs. When the people are told they must serve IT, the pooch has been screwed and it's time to shake the etch a sketch. I can send anybody who doesn't know what time it is an old Timex, if it'll help. Wealth doesn't trickle down, money is bad IOUs, any any "pure" form of any given ideology is toxic as sh*t. Beauce all socioeconomic systems are COMPONENTS of what mostly works, most of the time, and nothing more. The sad part is, we already know this and keep fighting to see who gets to hold the flag the highest for whatever particular flavor of toxic we bought. into. Ah, ha ha. Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?
 
2012-09-19 10:47:18 PM

bunner: eraser8: TOSViolation: It may sound good when you read it back to yourself, but it's still wrong. The entire driving force behind Capitalism is greed. Without greed, Capitalism does not work at all.

Unchecked greed is FATAL to capitalism. It simply can't work without regulation. Otherwise, it just devolves into feudalism. Or worse.

Capital in the form of bank notes has no intrinsic value. It is, rather, simply IOUs and was ever thus and serves no purpose other that to facilitate commerce involving actual wealth. Guess what happens when 1% of the populous hoards it. Ah, ha ha. The greedheads will be hoist upon their own petards. T'was ever thus. Greed, you rube, is *not* good. Expansive and free motion of liquid capital amongst all strata of the populous is. Gordon Gecko was a cartoon character. So was Reagan. Suckers.



Dude...Capitalism has nothing to do with bank notes. Bartering is still Capitalism. It doesn't matter what item(s) of capital value you use.

Capitalism doesn't even have anything to do with democracy. You can have a Capitalist dictatorship or a democratic Socialist society.
 
2012-09-19 10:48:22 PM
AND any pure for. Can't type for toffee.
 
2012-09-19 10:50:54 PM

TOSViolation: That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff.


How have you not figured out that monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade PREVENT competition? That's why it's illegal in this country for any firm or group of firms to deliberately set out to create monopoly conditions...or, to use any monopoly power it/they may wield in order to maintain that monopoly.

Of course, it should be noted that monopolies are not per se illegal.

In any case, capitalism requires free competition. And, free competition requires regulation. Without regulation, the natural tendency for firms to collude in "a conspiracy against the public" is overwhelming. And, the system breaks down.
 
2012-09-19 10:53:54 PM

Bhasayate: Obviously, many, many people are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards. But that's not a failure of an economic system, it's a failure of humanity.


Not really sure what this has to do with my post.

Bhasayate: Many, many, people, regardless of the economic and/or political system, are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards.It's not like getting rid of capitalism is going to magically change that.


Who is advocating getting rid of capitalism?

Bhasayate: So how does Capitalism fail to work at all


Wait, what?
 
2012-09-19 10:55:20 PM
This whole campaign seems as though it was built on a swamp...
 
2012-09-19 10:57:41 PM
TOSViolation: That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff.

Or, if you can successfully foist off whatever trash you can buy for 25¢ to people for 1.00 on a regular basis and stonewall them with endlessly circuitous automated phone systems, you get to have nice stuff, too. People who think they win when they get to sh*t where everybody, eventually has to eat, amuse me to no end. People so unaware of their own mortality that they think somebody wins to begin with? More so.
 
2012-09-19 10:59:06 PM
Sounds like the GOP may finally be learning the old rule.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all Doubt."
 
2012-09-19 11:01:05 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff.

How have you not figured out that monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade PREVENT competition? That's why it's illegal in this country for any firm or group of firms to deliberately set out to create monopoly conditions...or, to use any monopoly power it/they may wield in order to maintain that monopoly.

Of course, it should be noted that monopolies are not per se illegal.

In any case, capitalism requires free competition. And, free competition requires regulation. Without regulation, the natural tendency for firms to collude in "a conspiracy against the public" is overwhelming. And, the system breaks down.



Monopolies are not a problem as long as someone else is willing to come along to challenge them. Without government regulations to back them up, monopolies fail in the face of innovation.

Look at the RIAA. They are no longer relevant without government protection. Recording studios had near-monopolies on music production. They are now largely irrelevant.

The only thing we need the government to do is protect competitors from killing each other outright. Have a good idea? Protect it. Steal a good idea? You must have been smarter.

I'm not saying it's morally right. I'm just saying it's human nature. It's just like the last roll at the dinner table. The weak man gives it up to his brother, who then grows stronger and kills him.
 
2012-09-19 11:02:05 PM

bunner: TOSViolation: That's what competition is for. If you're the best, then you deserve to have the most stuff.

Or, if you can successfully foist off whatever trash you can buy for 25¢ to people for 1.00 on a regular basis and stonewall them with endlessly circuitous automated phone systems, you get to have nice stuff, too. People who think they win when they get to sh*t where everybody, eventually has to eat, amuse me to no end. People so unaware of their own mortality that they think somebody wins to begin with? More so.



You only have to keep winning until you die. After that, you don't care anymore.
 
2012-09-19 11:03:18 PM
Crap! I gave the thread tree-fiddy. I'm out!
 
2012-09-19 11:04:45 PM

Kit Fister: Both parties ARE equally negative in their own ways. Ideally, who "should" we vote for? The best candidate who is the most sane (this is why I'm grudgingly voting Obama this time around). If we could get enough people to get their heads out of their asses and on the move to get EC votes for a third party and that third party was sane, then I'd go that way. Ron Paul is not sane. He's just insane in a different way than Obama or Romney.

Obama is the least farked up candidate we have for prez. For house and senate? we can start at Maine and get rid of whatsername that's completely batshiat, and work our way to California and get rid of Pelosi.

And, no, maybe I don't know anyone you would consider "Extremely left wing". However, I know several folks that are on the same level of legislating their views as the ultra-radical right wingers, and the positions they support, while not as controversial as abortion or gay marriage, are equally as damaging, such as those that would levy huge taxes and tariffs on businesses to cover the costs of environmental programs, or those that think we should arbitrarily ban certain types of cars or cars in general or other weird shiat that floated out of a haze of bong smoke.


See, the difference between the parties--and someone's probably pointed it out above, but I don't have time to skim the rest of the thread--is that the Republicans elect the batshiat insane right-wing types. Democrats tend not to. Sure, you get a few aberrations, McKinney or Rangel for instance (who are wacky less for policy than for plain insanity). But the policies you're describing from the "extreme left wing" are to the left of the sorts of things Bernie Sanders proposes... Sanders being hands-down the farthest-left person in national office (in the US) right now.

As far as levying tariffs on polluting businesses, well, talk to noted hyper-leftist Tricky Dick Nixon about the EPA and the Clean Water Act...
 
2012-09-19 11:06:27 PM

eraser8: Bhasayate: Obviously, many, many people are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards. But that's not a failure of an economic system, it's a failure of humanity.

Not really sure what this has to do with my post.

Bhasayate: Many, many, people, regardless of the economic and/or political system, are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards.It's not like getting rid of capitalism is going to magically change that.

Who is advocating getting rid of capitalism?

Bhasayate: So how does Capitalism fail to work at all

Wait, what?


OH sorry. I reply to the one you replied to. i thought that was clear.
 
2012-09-19 11:06:57 PM

Kit Fister: buckler: hubiestubert: And that's the problem. It's not a gottverdammt sport. Vote for the man, vote for the polices, and screw the appellation at the end of their name. Vote who you think will do best for the nation. That is the ONLY way we can reform the system at this point, and it takes consistently voting for the best candidate, not the team.

Motherfarking THIS. You know, if they hadn't ousted Huntsman as a science-and-common-sense-addled RINO, I probably still would vote for Obama, but I sure as hell wouldn't be tearing my hair out if Huntsman won. The man's got sense and sensibility, and I'd be happy enough having him as my President (and I'm sure our allies would, too). This goddamned "team spirit" thing is tearing us apart as a country, and it needs to end pronto. Unfortunately, in the astroturfing of the Tea Party, Fox news (the most egregious cheerleaders for their team), corporate America and the GOP created a golem they can no longer control, and it's only pushed us into the depths of hyperpartisanship.

Amen, brother.


Sucks that I'm on mobile. I need to post some pictures of bears.
 
2012-09-19 11:08:53 PM
I know this is totally off topic, but this is really, really weird....

WTF?
 
2012-09-19 11:10:41 PM
Mitch didn't just pull his head and limbs into his shell? He certainly couldn't have run all that fast.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-09-19 11:16:31 PM

TOSViolation: Monopolies are not a problem as long as someone else is willing to come along to challenge them. Without government regulations to back them up, monopolies fail in the face of innovation.


That view is naive...and, if adopted, would ultimately damage the economy. I suspect the existing antitrust laws provide the basis for your thinking that your view is plausible. Monopolies come and go in the United States because, as I mentioned earlier, it is ILLEGAL for any firm to deploy anticompetitive practices to protect its monopoly power.

The reason there are multiple, competing oil companies and telephone companies (although their numbers are diminishing) is because the government broke up Standard Oil and AT&T. It isn't because hot shot new firms came in and out competed Big Oil and Ma Bell.

TOSViolation: Look at the RIAA. They are no longer relevant without government protection. Recording studios had near-monopolies on music production. They are now largely irrelevant.


Bad example. You're seriously misunderstanding what happened there.

Music production is still largely a studio affair -- be it a big studio or an independent label. What changed is the methods of distribution and severity of piracy. The RIAA hasn't become irrelevant. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that electronic distribution and piracy has made the Association more important than it's ever been.

Don't make the mistake of confusing the studios -- which produce and, sometimes, distribute music -- with the RIAA, which is a trade group that protects the interests of its members.
 
2012-09-19 11:19:10 PM
TOSViolation: Look at the RIAA. They are no longer relevant without government protection. Recording studios had near-monopolies on music production. They are now largely irrelevant.

Look, I realize you're just stirring up random sh*t, but you want to know how I know you have no f*cking idea what you're talking about? : )
 
2012-09-19 11:22:59 PM

bunner: "These are the people who never pay taxes." - Mitt Romney, 2012


thanks - I don't know what else to say but thanks. It made my day.
 
2012-09-19 11:26:52 PM
Capitalism is, at it's best, the same as socialism, a few, slightly useful shreds of the utter failure that is communism, and every other "ism" you might want to hitch your caboose to. A component of what sort of works when stewarded by honest men. Nothing more. Your kool aid, yes, YOUR kool aid is no less poisonous than the other guy's. Get over it.
 
2012-09-19 11:33:39 PM

Wild Eyed and Wicked: A family member is a high ranking associate in the Republican party - I can hardly wait for Thanksgiving lol. It seems that Romney may give me as much as Sarah Palin did to mock him with. They are the gift that keeps on giving anymore...

Excuse any typos because the touchpad does not like my bandaged thumb...damned barb wire.


Might I humbly suggest that you try to not be "that guy" at Thanksgiving dinner?
 
2012-09-19 11:44:07 PM

TOSViolation: snitramc: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

So you think Jammy Okeefe should be in jail and ACORN should still be in business? Am I reading you correctly?


I don't know who either of those are, and I'm pretty sure I don't care.


Well if you don't know who James O'Keefe and ACORN are, then I guess you just started paying attention to politics in the last couple of years. Welcome. If you really care about punishing those who secretly videorecord unsuspecting, innocent people, and then publish that video to the unfair detriment of said people, then you would be very interested in James O'Keefe and the lives he ruined and what he did to ACORN.
 
2012-09-19 11:44:30 PM

eraser8: TOSViolation: The truth is that I don't think any human society can properly implement Socialism due to the human nature of greed. Capitalism is in our nature.

It's absolutely false to say that capitalism is in our nature. It is not. It never has been. It probably never will be.

There's a reason it didn't arise as a mature philosophy until the mid-18th Century. And, there's a reason the Republican party has recently been assaulting capitalism at every turn. It's the same reason that you cite for the impossibility of socialism: greed.

You might think I made a mistake by pointing out the Republican hostility to capitalism. But, I'm completely serious. For capitalism to work, choices must be, essentially, free. That means, regulation must be in place to prevent greedy people from colluding and forming cartels and monopolies and other combinations in restraint of trade. As Adam Smith, known by many as the father of capitalism wrote, "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." It also means that if a person chooses to sell his labor, he should be able to negotiate a fair price for it.

But, Republicans say, "hang the regulations that keep capitalism functional." Get rid of the unions that allow workers to negotiate on a level playing field. And, why shouldn't they? Capitalism is an inherently democratic (not referring to the Democratic party, here) concept and Republicans are not democrats. Ditto for unions. Thomas Jefferson could have been talking about the modern Republican party when he wrote that we, "now look to a single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations under the guise and cloak of their favored branches of manufactures, commerce and navigation, riding and ruling over the plundered ploughman and beggared yeomanry. This will be to them a ne ...


In order for a free market system to operate, all the players have to operate on a level playing field. And we do not have that here in America. We have industries, and only select businesses in those industries, with subsidies. We have a taxation system that tends to ignore tax cheats at one level, and go after others. We have collusion within our government to protect certain players, and certain kinds of business, while hampering their competition. Solar power is one of those competitors right now, you you see the pushback against that. Why? Because campaign funds are available to those folks who work that angle.

We sort of failed in our venture, when we turned to the robber barons to get the railroads laid. We relaxed some of the regulations that fettered corporate entities that we began our democracy with. Why? Because our Founders had first hand experience with the state being bound to corporate interests with the Crown. Used to be, you had to have a charter in every state your business operated in--and you had to show the benefit to the state for allowing your business to operate. Benefit not to the Senators or Representatives, but to the state it was operating in. This kept business interests somewhat fettered. Still profitable, but when you coupled that with weak banks, and a government with limited control of economic measures, especially in how taxation was collected, we had a weird cycle of funding for government projects, and a boom-bust cycle that typified the American economy for over half its span.

The assisted market that we see, has a lot of weight behind it. We subsidize businesses that don't need the assistance, and we have glaring loopholes that are by design to profit folks. Worse, we have expanded our legislation by huge amounts--yes, Virginia, regulations--that minutely identify what is and is not permissible which creates these loopholes that companies can then claim that their practices are perfectly legal.

Regulation IS stifling us. The increased legislation that binds regulatory agencies from actually doing their jobs. Regulation that rewards the largest players to keep doing what they're doing, and demand that smaller players are kept at a disadvantage until they can grow large enough to compete, and the regulation is there to KEEP them from competing fairly, and to keep innovation OUT of our markets.

We need sensible legislation. We need sensible taxation. We need sensible regulation. In order to keep the markets fair. If anything, industries, when they "help" write legislation, what they are doing is binding the government with far more pages of regulation than is necessary, to codify and minutely identify all the conditions that they can skip out, or keep their competition from rising up too fast against them--especially when you see agribusiness take the lion's share of subsidies that they don't really need, but certainly pad out the bottom line. Not to keep afloat, but to keep farmers from competing with them.

We need more sensible legislation, not just less. That is part of the problem right now. Far too much legislation that does very little, because it's designed to hobble agencies from doing their job, and hobble competition, and that is hardly a free market system...
 
2012-09-19 11:49:06 PM

bunner: I can put a halt to all this sh*t in about 10 seconds. It's astoundingly easy, works flawlessly and it will never happen.


Uhhhh... wut? Put a halt to what, and how?
 
2012-09-19 11:50:11 PM

TOSViolation: snitramc: TOSViolation: I'm just wondering why the FBI hasn't hunted down the person who illegally filmed the event, violating wiretapping laws. The cops try to throw people in jail for far less, but this is a case where they truly did break the law.

I don't care what or why Romney said what he said. A crime was committed, and everyone involved should be jailed. I don't see how it's even legal for YouTube to host the results of illegal wiretapping.

So you think Jammy Okeefe should be in jail and ACORN should still be in business? Am I reading you correctly?


I don't know who either of those are, and I'm pretty sure I don't care.


Having said this, we now know you're really 13, typing this in your mom's basement, and nothing else you say need be taken seriously.

Go to bed, junior, the grownups are talking.
 
2012-09-19 11:55:33 PM

TreeHugger: bunner: I can put a halt to all this sh*t in about 10 seconds. It's astoundingly easy, works flawlessly and it will never happen.

Uhhhh... wut? Put a halt to what, and how?


All this pissing an moaning about secret cameras and sneaky journalism and cops getting recorded and ACORN having criminal facilitators on their staffs and Mittens getting all "No fair!"

It's easy.

Ready?

Never, ever say ANYthing you don't absolutely mean and never say anything to anybody that you wouldn't repeat, verbatim, to the world, your mom or a 6 year old girl. Ta da. It involves not trying to con, bullsh*t or game system. So, as I said, it wont happen.
 
2012-09-19 11:59:51 PM

bunner: TreeHugger: bunner: I can put a halt to all this sh*t in about 10 seconds. It's astoundingly easy, works flawlessly and it will never happen.

Uhhhh... wut? Put a halt to what, and how?

All this pissing an moaning about secret cameras and sneaky journalism and cops getting recorded


Oh, silly me. I thought you meant like an EMP to shut down the camera electronics, or something.
 
2012-09-20 12:01:38 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: Gads that man is hideous of appearance. He is truly dick headed.


Hey! It's not nice to make fun of turtles!
 
2012-09-20 12:03:24 AM

TreeHugger: bunner: TreeHugger: bunner: I can put a halt to all this sh*t in about 10 seconds. It's astoundingly easy, works flawlessly and it will never happen.

Uhhhh... wut? Put a halt to what, and how?

All this pissing an moaning about secret cameras and sneaky journalism and cops getting recorded

Oh, silly me. I thought you meant like an EMP to shut down the camera electronics, or something.


Nah. that just furthers our collective idiotic notion that life is warfare, money and politics are the field fo battle and the sneakiest bastard wins something. : )
 
2012-09-20 12:04:29 AM

TOSViolation: Some Bass Playing Guy: TOSViolation:

Put down your iPhone, and do your homework, kid.


The stupid. It continues to burn.

All of this talk about ZOMG CRIMEZ is just to deflect from the fact that the the real Mitt Romney has been revealed. In his own words directly from the horses ass.

Change your diaper, Gramps.
 
2012-09-20 12:27:55 AM
Wow, this thread got jacked, hard. You're arguing with a jackass when you should be making fun of Mitch McConnell. For shame.
 
2012-09-20 01:16:49 AM
Came for Mitch Connor reference, leaving dissapointed.

static.tvfanatic.com
 
2012-09-20 01:34:28 AM

Coelacanth: Mitch runs away from a lot of things Link 


***reads link***

Interesting. That wasn't what I was expecting. I thought it would be the story about how Mitch McConnell was terrified of being confronted by a twelve year old girl.
 
2012-09-20 02:42:01 AM

TOSViolation: Without government regulations to back them up, monopolies

will buy legislators and judges until they do have government regulations to back them up.

Hope this helps.
 
2012-09-20 03:02:06 AM
Republican members of Congress up for re-election are going to dump this shiathead overboard to save their own skin. Gotta love it.
 
2012-09-20 03:34:31 AM
After 8 years of bush and 4 years of obama not ending the crap I don't think a hidden camera at a private political fundraiser is really a priority as far as right to privacy goes right now.

Maybe he shouldn't talk mad smack about broad swathes of the american public, even in private.
 
2012-09-20 03:38:17 AM
Romney: "Colonel McConnell, you will give the order for your men to withdraw."

Obama: "No. Colonel McConnell, I want you to tell your men... to run away."

McConnell: "What?"

Obama: "Those words. "Run away." I want you to be famous for those exact words. I want people to call you Colonel Runaway. I want children laughing outside your door, 'cause they've found the house of Colonel Runaway. And when people come to you and ask if trying to get to me through THE PEOPLE I LOVE! ...is in any way a good idea... I want you to tell them your name.

Look, I'm angry, that's new. I'm really not sure what's going to happen now."
 
2012-09-20 05:20:27 AM

PanicMan: Wow, this thread got jacked, hard. You're arguing with a jackass when you should be making fun of Mitch McConnell. For shame.


Pretty much, yeah.
"Win the battle and lose the war" or some such.
 
2012-09-20 12:14:56 PM

jayhawk88: This GOP presidential campaign does start to make a lot more sense if you imagine it's a big Monty Python skit.

GOP leadership actively dodging questions about their candidate less than 2 months from the election. Good Lord.


Upper Class Republican Twit of the Year
 
2012-09-20 01:04:43 PM

FlashHarry: i've gotta say, this self-immolation by the GOP has been glorious to watch.


This is the best election cycle ever.
 
2012-09-20 02:51:40 PM
Came back late to this thread again just to find out that I missed TOSViolation's entire failed biatching about how the Romney tape was "illegal" and needs to be prosecuted, and then quickly devolving into a philosophical debate on the merits of capitalism and offering a rather creepy window into his own sociopathic tendencies.

Damn, I don't think I've seen such an epic meltdown on FARK since the Christmas Troll saga in the Trayvon Martin threads.
 
2012-09-20 06:12:17 PM
zombiesruineverything.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-09-20 07:11:23 PM

eraser8: Bhasayate: Many, many, people, regardless of the economic and/or political system, are greedy, selfish and immoral bastards.It's not like getting rid of capitalism is going to magically change that.

Who is advocating getting rid of capitalism?


Please don't play with the straw man.
 
2012-09-21 03:06:26 PM
I would like to remind GOPers that Myth Busters proved that a sinking ship will not pull you down with it if you are too close. So just chill everyone.
 
2012-09-21 03:32:05 PM
Today's summary of Romney failure:

-Ryan boo'd throughout speech to AARP
-McConnell runs away from press instead of defending Romney
-Ann Romney gets mad at Republicans for throwing Mitt under bus
-Romney release 2011 tax return artificially manipulated not to not make him a liar
 
2012-09-21 06:38:13 PM
Rom-nay.
 
Displayed 385 of 385 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report