Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   So, after several billion in campaign spending, endless amounts of television and Internet time spent on discussing, arguing, slandering, defending and confusing the issues, when all is said and done, the status quo will remain unchanged   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 90
    More: Obvious, online, Indiana Senate, Secretary of State Colin Powell, status quo, Richard Mourdock, sununu, southern district, Windsor Castle  
•       •       •

1313 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Oct 2012 at 11:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-26 12:35:35 PM  
www.ayecarumba.net

The status quo? AY CARAMBA!!
 
2012-10-26 12:36:44 PM  

cman: As for the two Obama appointees I am not comfortable enough to make any sort of statement based upon partisanship since I am ignorant of their pasts.


Your ignorance didn't stop you from calling it "party before country"
 
2012-10-26 12:36:44 PM  

qorkfiend: Craptastic: cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: Party before country, amirite? High five!

Oh, so you'll be voting for Obama?

Nope

BTW that comment was directed at both the GOP and democrats who select SCOTUS appointees based upon their political positions alone

Whereas I don't disagree with your opinion on this, are you saying that either Kagan or Sotomayor are otherwise unqualified for their positions on the SCOTUS? Of COURSE presidents are going to nominate justices that hold similar values. That's how the system is designed.

I mean, Bush nominated Harriet Miers, and legislators on both sides of the aisle said "lol no."

I think the fact that we escaped the Bush years without either Harriet Miers or Alberto Gonzalez on the Court is a miracle.


Well, Miers was supremely (forgive the unintentional pun) unqualified, and even the GOPers in congress were embarassed by her nomination. Gonzalez had the educational background, and the work-related qualifications, but he kind of screwed the pooch popularity-wise with his outlandish statements and actions. SCOTUS nominees are usually unknowns to the general populace, and there's a good reason for that.
 
2012-10-26 12:37:48 PM  

The Why Not Guy: cman: As for the two Obama appointees I am not comfortable enough to make any sort of statement based upon partisanship since I am ignorant of their pasts.

Your ignorance didn't stop you from calling it "party before country"


I was talking about the poster who said Obama MUST be elected to ensure that SCOTUS appointees will be liberal the next few years
 
2012-10-26 12:39:50 PM  

cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: As for the two Obama appointees I am not comfortable enough to make any sort of statement based upon partisanship since I am ignorant of their pasts.

Your ignorance didn't stop you from calling it "party before country"

I was talking about the poster who said Obama MUST be elected to ensure that SCOTUS appointees will be liberal the next few years


Why should any president appoint a judge they vehemently disagree with?
 
2012-10-26 12:40:06 PM  

cman: Craptastic: cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: Party before country, amirite? High five!

Oh, so you'll be voting for Obama?

Nope

BTW that comment was directed at both the GOP and democrats who select SCOTUS appointees based upon their political positions alone

Whereas I don't disagree with your opinion on this, are you saying that either Kagan or Sotomayor are otherwise unqualified for their positions on the SCOTUS? Of COURSE presidents are going to nominate justices that hold similar values. That's how the system is designed.

I mean, Bush nominated Harriet Miers, and legislators on both sides of the aisle said "lol no."

I won't disagree with you on the point of Miers. That was straight partisanship. As for the two Obama appointees I am not comfortable enough to make any sort of statement based upon partisanship since I am ignorant of their pasts.


Fair enough. I do have to admire Kagan's willingness to recuse herself when cases are presented where she may have had some past input in her previous job. Plus, she's funny as hell when she has the opportunity to make a joke.
 
2012-10-26 12:40:15 PM  

cman: I was talking about the poster who said Obama MUST be elected to ensure that SCOTUS appointees will be liberal the next few years


Yeah, and you flat out admitted you knew nothing about Obama's previous nominees. But it's party before country, right?
 
2012-10-26 12:41:25 PM  

qorkfiend: cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: As for the two Obama appointees I am not comfortable enough to make any sort of statement based upon partisanship since I am ignorant of their pasts.

Your ignorance didn't stop you from calling it "party before country"

I was talking about the poster who said Obama MUST be elected to ensure that SCOTUS appointees will be liberal the next few years

Why should any president appoint a judge they vehemently disagree with?


I dunno bout you, but I would be more concern to select people who are about doing what is right, not pushing an agenda
 
2012-10-26 12:43:26 PM  

The Why Not Guy: cman: I was talking about the poster who said Obama MUST be elected to ensure that SCOTUS appointees will be liberal the next few years

Yeah, and you flat out admitted you knew nothing about Obama's previous nominees. But it's party before country, right?


Umm, I was talking about the posters party before country statement. I was not talking about any actual nominees. It was a post replying to a poster who wants to keep Obama in office to ensure that the next few SCOTUS members are liberal

/am I not making any sense or something?
 
2012-10-26 12:45:32 PM  

Sock Ruh Tease: Cythraul: vpb: That's about the best that can be hoped for until the spasm of bat-shiat crazy that has taken over the right subsides.

You think that will happen by 2016? I have a feeling we're only delaying for another four years until we get Bush 2.0.

I have a feeling that it will never happen. The right's reaction to losing for at least the past decade (but probably for about the past 30 years) has been "move more to the right".They will only accept victory as an indication that they have moved far enough to win. I think it's more likely that the Republican party will split and/or its saner members will become Democrats.


You're wrong, and here's why - look at the first debate. Romney tacked hard to the center, with narry a cry from the right. Why? Because it WORKED. He appeared strong, and he WON.

That's what mattered, not the substance. All they need to regalvanize the party is a charismatic leader with just enough 'stick it to the liberals' bona fides to win the votes of the die hard republicans.

There's really very few solid principles one has to have to be a republican hero - most of it is charisma. Abortion, guns, Israel and supporting church in the public sphere is about all I can think of.

Fiscal conservatism is negotiable - it only matters when it can be used agains democrats. See Reagan/Bush 2 budgets vs Clinton/Obama government shutdowns.

America's role as a nation builder/world police or as an isolationist country is negotiable - see neo-con disgust with not 'finishing' Gulf War 1, vs attacks on Clinton for 'world policing' in Bosnia, Bush 2 attacks on Gore for it vs Gulf war 2, and republicans attacking Obama for not attacking Lybia - then for attacking Lybia - for not withdrawing from Afghanistan fast enough and from Iraq too fast and for not attacking Iran and/Syria.

Even attitudes on Gays and Latinos are negotiable - Liz Cheney, Log Cabin Republicans, Marco Rubio... Make a strong enough statement against the democrats and its negotiable.

Don't expect the party to be unable to shift - they've done it adroitly many times.
 
2012-10-26 12:48:18 PM  

Muta: mrshowrules: If Obama wins, it will be the biggest failure of the GOP as well as their biggest douchebag move in recent history.

I'll politely disagree. The biggest failure of the GOP was the Bush presidency but i agree it was their douchebaggiest move.


I see your point. However, Bush did exactly what was expected of him. Look at the wealth added to already richest part of the population. Look at the defense contracts. Not a single social policy advanced, many rolled back. From their perspective he was an absolute success. From any intelligent perspective, he was one of the biggest failures ever.
 
2012-10-26 12:55:44 PM  
when all is said and done, the status quo will remain unchanged

~gee, ya think~

The them VS us attitude has gotten us where we are today. It is now so toxic as to be unworkable.

Change will not occur until it is forced upon the system. Short of revolution, the only way to do this is a viable 3rd party that forces debate on real issues.

Since this is detrimental to both parties and the corporations they serve, they will fight it tooth and nail.

It's not like they would lock out a candidate from the debate, much less arrest then for daring to attend as a member of the audience.
As naked as that was, I sure don't hear much outrage.
 
2012-10-26 12:56:45 PM  

blender61: when all is said and done, the status quo will remain unchanged

~gee, ya think~

The them VS us attitude has gotten us where we are today. It is now so toxic as to be unworkable.

Change will not occur until it is forced upon the system. Short of revolution, the only way to do this is a viable 3rd party that forces debate on real issues.

Since this is detrimental to both parties and the corporations they serve, they will fight it tooth and nail.

It's not like they would lock out a candidate from the debate, much less arrest then for daring to attend as a member of the audience.
As naked as that was, I sure don't hear much outrage.


So vote republican
 
2012-10-26 01:03:13 PM  

cman: qorkfiend: cman: The Why Not Guy: cman: As for the two Obama appointees I am not comfortable enough to make any sort of statement based upon partisanship since I am ignorant of their pasts.

Your ignorance didn't stop you from calling it "party before country"

I was talking about the poster who said Obama MUST be elected to ensure that SCOTUS appointees will be liberal the next few years

Why should any president appoint a judge they vehemently disagree with?

I dunno bout you, but I would be more concern to select people who are about doing what is right, not pushing an agenda


Right. And, who would you trust to do what is "right"? Someone you agree with, or someone you don't?

Democrats believe that it is right for a court to decide that a woman can get an abortion. Republicans believe this is not right. So, given your criteria, why should a Democrat select a judge that would do something they consider "not right"?
 
2012-10-26 01:03:28 PM  

cman: blender61: when all is said and done, the status quo will remain unchanged

~gee, ya think~

The them VS us attitude has gotten us where we are today. It is now so toxic as to be unworkable.

Change will not occur until it is forced upon the system. Short of revolution, the only way to do this is a viable 3rd party that forces debate on real issues.

Since this is detrimental to both parties and the corporations they serve, they will fight it tooth and nail.

It's not like they would lock out a candidate from the debate, much less arrest then for daring to attend as a member of the audience.
As naked as that was, I sure don't hear much outrage.

So vote republican


It's worth noting that this same line is used by hardcore Republicans on right-leaning messageboards, except obviously in the "so vote democrat" sense. I like target shooting and guns, so I post on a few gun forums...which, I should note, are surprisingly (and refreshingly) full of democrat and libertarian shooters who like to argue with the Republicans. One of the Republicans favorite lines is, if you mention voting for a third party, "you're voting for Obama when you don't vote for the Republican candidate." The same shiat in reverse that the far left uses here on Fark.
 
2012-10-26 01:09:53 PM  
i.imgur.com

Status quo.
 
2012-10-26 01:11:39 PM  

Hugh2d2: [i.imgur.com image 780x400]

Status quo.


BUT BUT BUT my candidate is so much different!
 
2012-10-26 01:13:17 PM  

Hugh2d2: [i.imgur.com image 780x400]

Status quo.


I'm dying to know what data they used to make that chart.
 
2012-10-26 01:14:05 PM  

topcon: cman: blender61: when all is said and done, the status quo will remain unchanged

~gee, ya think~

The them VS us attitude has gotten us where we are today. It is now so toxic as to be unworkable.

Change will not occur until it is forced upon the system. Short of revolution, the only way to do this is a viable 3rd party that forces debate on real issues.

Since this is detrimental to both parties and the corporations they serve, they will fight it tooth and nail.

It's not like they would lock out a candidate from the debate, much less arrest then for daring to attend as a member of the audience.
As naked as that was, I sure don't hear much outrage.

So vote republican

It's worth noting that this same line is used by hardcore Republicans on right-leaning messageboards, except obviously in the "so vote democrat" sense. I like target shooting and guns, so I post on a few gun forums...which, I should note, are surprisingly (and refreshingly) full of democrat and libertarian shooters who like to argue with the Republicans. One of the Republicans favorite lines is, if you mention voting for a third party, "you're voting for Obama when you don't vote for the Republican candidate." The same shiat in reverse that the far left uses here on Fark.


I'm a libertarian myself. People call me a corporate shill. I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican. BSABSVR is simply an idiotic viewpoint that forwards a delusional state of mind. Those who spout it ignore their own sides problems thinking that their shiat don't stink. Being shouted down with BSABSVR on my libertarian viewpoints really pisses me off?
 
2012-10-26 01:15:10 PM  

TV's Vinnie: /gop winter is coming


This has sooooooo much win.
 
2012-10-26 01:17:43 PM  

cman: topcon: cman: blender61: when all is said and done, the status quo will remain unchanged

~gee, ya think~

The them VS us attitude has gotten us where we are today. It is now so toxic as to be unworkable.

Change will not occur until it is forced upon the system. Short of revolution, the only way to do this is a viable 3rd party that forces debate on real issues.

Since this is detrimental to both parties and the corporations they serve, they will fight it tooth and nail.

It's not like they would lock out a candidate from the debate, much less arrest then for daring to attend as a member of the audience.
As naked as that was, I sure don't hear much outrage.

So vote republican

It's worth noting that this same line is used by hardcore Republicans on right-leaning messageboards, except obviously in the "so vote democrat" sense. I like target shooting and guns, so I post on a few gun forums...which, I should note, are surprisingly (and refreshingly) full of democrat and libertarian shooters who like to argue with the Republicans. One of the Republicans favorite lines is, if you mention voting for a third party, "you're voting for Obama when you don't vote for the Republican candidate." The same shiat in reverse that the far left uses here on Fark.

I'm a libertarian myself. People call me a corporate shill. I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican. BSABSVR is simply an idiotic viewpoint that forwards a delusional state of mind. Those who spout it ignore their own sides problems thinking that their shiat don't stink. Being shouted down with BSABSVR on my libertarian viewpoints really pisses me off?


I hate responding on fark on my iPad. The last question mark was a mistake caused by me pressing the . button while my keyboard was in caps lock
 
2012-10-26 01:17:43 PM  

cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.


Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?
 
2012-10-26 01:19:33 PM  

qorkfiend: cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.

Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?


No I don't. I am not voting for anyone who doesn't support them. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson and one of the reasons why I am voting for Angus King. Obama supports gay marriage but not enough to bring it to a federal civil rights case. Romney wants to jail all homosexuals. Gary Johnson is the only one who wants to bring gay marriage federally.
 
2012-10-26 01:34:08 PM  

cman: qorkfiend: cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.

Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?

No I don't. I am not voting for anyone who doesn't support them. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson and one of the reasons why I am voting for Angus King. Obama supports gay marriage but not enough to bring it to a federal civil rights case. Romney wants to jail all homosexuals. Gary Johnson is the only one who wants to bring gay marriage federally.


Well, ok. I apologize; I had seen your "Not voting Obama" comment upthread (or in another thread...and it's also entirely possible it was someone else's comment) and immediately defaulted to Romney.

I like what I've heard about King.

When you say "Johnson wants to bring gay marriage federally," what does he mean? The official campaign website is pretty short on details. It also stops short of saying that there should be a federal law, only that "Government should not impose its values upon marriage." Would Johnson approve of a federal law to preempt state laws or amendments to state constitutions that ban gay marriage?

Also, this troubles me: "It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." This is all-too-often code for "allowed to discriminate if there's even a remote association to a religion".
 
2012-10-26 01:36:55 PM  

qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.

Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?

No I don't. I am not voting for anyone who doesn't support them. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson and one of the reasons why I am voting for Angus King. Obama supports gay marriage but not enough to bring it to a federal civil rights case. Romney wants to jail all homosexuals. Gary Johnson is the only one who wants to bring gay marriage federally.

Well, ok. I apologize; I had seen your "Not voting Obama" comment upthread (or in another thread...and it's also entirely possible it was someone else's comment) and immediately defaulted to Romney.

I like what I've heard about King.

When you say "Johnson wants to bring gay marriage federally," what does he mean? The official campaign website is pretty short on details. It also stops short of saying that there should be a federal law, only that "Government should not impose its values upon marriage." Would Johnson approve of a federal law to preempt state laws or amendments to state constitutions that ban gay marriage?

Also, this troubles me: "It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." This is all-too-often code for "allowed to discriminate if there's even a remote association to a religion".


This will enlighten you on his position of gay marriage
 
2012-10-26 01:40:24 PM  

cman: qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.

Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?

No I don't. I am not voting for anyone who doesn't support them. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson and one of the reasons why I am voting for Angus King. Obama supports gay marriage but not enough to bring it to a federal civil rights case. Romney wants to jail all homosexuals. Gary Johnson is the only one who wants to bring gay marriage federally.

Well, ok. I apologize; I had seen your "Not voting Obama" comment upthread (or in another thread...and it's also entirely possible it was someone else's comment) and immediately defaulted to Romney.

I like what I've heard about King.

When you say "Johnson wants to bring gay marriage federally," what does he mean? The official campaign website is pretty short on details. It also stops short of saying that there should be a federal law, only that "Government should not impose its values upon marriage." Would Johnson approve of a federal law to preempt state laws or amendments to state constitutions that ban gay marriage?

Also, this troubles me: "It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." This is all-too-often code for "allowed to discriminate if there's even a remote association to a religion".

This will enlighten you on his position of gay marriage


Still doesn't say what he plans to do about it. He's not in favor of Obama's approach, but we knew that already...
 
2012-10-26 01:45:11 PM  

qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.

Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?

No I don't. I am not voting for anyone who doesn't support them. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson and one of the reasons why I am voting for Angus King. Obama supports gay marriage but not enough to bring it to a federal civil rights case. Romney wants to jail all homosexuals. Gary Johnson is the only one who wants to bring gay marriage federally.

Well, ok. I apologize; I had seen your "Not voting Obama" comment upthread (or in another thread...and it's also entirely possible it was someone else's comment) and immediately defaulted to Romney.

I like what I've heard about King.

When you say "Johnson wants to bring gay marriage federally," what does he mean? The official campaign website is pretty short on details. It also stops short of saying that there should be a federal law, only that "Government should not impose its values upon marriage." Would Johnson approve of a federal law to preempt state laws or amendments to state constitutions that ban gay marriage?

Also, this troubles me: "It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." This is all-too-often code for "allowed to discriminate if there's even a remote association to a religion".

This will enlighten you on his position of gay marriage

Still doesn't say what he plans to do about it. He's not in favor of Obama's approach, but we knew that already...


He supports gay marriage at a federal level. At the same time, he does not want to force religious institutions to preform them against their will. There will be churches out there who will perform gay weddings
 
2012-10-26 01:58:40 PM  

cman: qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.

Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?

No I don't. I am not voting for anyone who doesn't support them. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson and one of the reasons why I am voting for Angus King. Obama supports gay marriage but not enough to bring it to a federal civil rights case. Romney wants to jail all homosexuals. Gary Johnson is the only one who wants to bring gay marriage federally.

Well, ok. I apologize; I had seen your "Not voting Obama" comment upthread (or in another thread...and it's also entirely possible it was someone else's comment) and immediately defaulted to Romney.

I like what I've heard about King.

When you say "Johnson wants to bring gay marriage federally," what does he mean? The official campaign website is pretty short on details. It also stops short of saying that there should be a federal law, only that "Government should not impose its values upon marriage." Would Johnson approve of a federal law to preempt state laws or amendments to state constitutions that ban gay marriage?

Also, this troubles me: "It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." This is all-too-often code for "allowed to discriminate if there's even a remote association to a religion".

This will enlighten you on his position of gay marriage

Still doesn't say what he plans to do about it. He's not in favor of Obama's approach, but we knew that already...

He supports gay marriage at a federal level. At the same time, he does not want to force religious institutions to preform them against their will. There will be churches out there who will perform gay weddings


Yes, but I'm still not seeing what he plans to do about states that have state-level bans. Will he push for a federal law to preempt those state bans? It looks like Johnson doesn't like the state-level bans, but doesn't seem to want to do anything about them. If he's content to let the courts take care of it - which they will - how is his approach substantially different than Obama's?
 
2012-10-26 02:02:50 PM  

qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.

Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?

No I don't. I am not voting for anyone who doesn't support them. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson and one of the reasons why I am voting for Angus King. Obama supports gay marriage but not enough to bring it to a federal civil rights case. Romney wants to jail all homosexuals. Gary Johnson is the only one who wants to bring gay marriage federally.

Well, ok. I apologize; I had seen your "Not voting Obama" comment upthread (or in another thread...and it's also entirely possible it was someone else's comment) and immediately defaulted to Romney.

I like what I've heard about King.

When you say "Johnson wants to bring gay marriage federally," what does he mean? The official campaign website is pretty short on details. It also stops short of saying that there should be a federal law, only that "Government should not impose its values upon marriage." Would Johnson approve of a federal law to preempt state laws or amendments to state constitutions that ban gay marriage?

Also, this troubles me: "It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." This is all-too-often code for "allowed to discriminate if there's even a remote association to a religion".

This will enlighten you on his position of gay marriage

Still doesn't say what he plans to do about it. He's not in favor of Obama's approach, but we knew that already...

He supports gay marriage at a federal level. At the same time, he does not want to force religious institutions to preform them against their will. There will be churches out there who will perform gay weddings

Yes, but I'm still not seeing what he plans to do about states that have state-level bans. Will ...


Ahh, I understand your question now. I do not know what his plan is to tackle the current bans in place. However, he did recently praise the striking down of DOMA. That gives me the impression that he may support undoing the bans via court systems and 14th amendment arguments.
 
2012-10-26 02:08:22 PM  
If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Emma Goldman
 
2012-10-26 02:11:40 PM  
Nothing will change.

Nothing EVER changes.

Why don't you people see that?
 
2012-10-26 02:21:29 PM  

topcon: cman: blender61: when all is said and done, the status quo will remain unchanged

~gee, ya think~

The them VS us attitude has gotten us where we are today. It is now so toxic as to be unworkable.

Change will not occur until it is forced upon the system. Short of revolution, the only way to do this is a viable 3rd party that forces debate on real issues.

Since this is detrimental to both parties and the corporations they serve, they will fight it tooth and nail.

It's not like they would lock out a candidate from the debate, much less arrest then for daring to attend as a member of the audience.
As naked as that was, I sure don't hear much outrage.

So vote republican

It's worth noting that this same line is used by hardcore Republicans on right-leaning messageboards, except obviously in the "so vote democrat" sense. I like target shooting and guns, so I post on a few gun forums...which, I should note, are surprisingly (and refreshingly) full of democrat and libertarian shooters who like to argue with the Republicans. One of the Republicans favorite lines is, if you mention voting for a third party, "you're voting for Obama when you don't vote for the Republican candidate." The same shiat in reverse that the far left uses here on Fark.


Look, I don't know how many time or different ways I can say this: Voting means jack-shiat. In the end, the guy that "wins" is the one that was selected by the powers-that-be long before election day, and then only because he presents the face and philosophical stance they wish. He has no real power. He does what's expected of him, and he doesn't make any changes that they didn't already approve of.

You can't vote for or against the true rulers of the world. You aren't really even voting for President. You're just being allowed to participate in a process that makes you feel like you have some control, but you really don't.

Vote for whomever you choose. In the end, They will put the guy they picked into the position and he will dance like a marionette, just like Congress and the Senate, in order to keep you occupied, arguing, and "involved" in the "political process" which is, in short, a total sham. It's a variety show, and you're just watching it on TV.

National elections are a "feel good" function. In the end you're still being ruled by the same people, and you'll never know who they are. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can stop arguing Liberal vs Conservative vs Libertarian and start enjoying the 80+ years you might get on this planet. Just stop arguing, stop worrying about politicians, and enjoy yourself.

My suggestion, much like Carlin's, is to stay home on Election Day to masturbate, instead of going to the polls to do the same thing with far fewer results and pleasure.
 
2012-10-26 02:26:18 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Nothing will change.

Nothing EVER changes.

Why don't you people see that?


Yeah! Slavery's still legal, women still can't vote, and black people are still 3/5 of a person. Nothing ever changes!
 
2012-10-26 02:27:44 PM  
when all is said and done, the status quo will remain unchanged

that's a relief, actually. The only other option was that things get even worse.
 
2012-10-26 02:28:43 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Nothing will change.

Nothing EVER changes.

Why don't you people see that?


WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Thing do indeed change, but they change slooooowly. It requires an well-informed populace, and that's the difficult part.
 
2012-10-26 02:43:36 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Nothing will change.

Nothing EVER changes.

Why don't you people see that?


Things change.

Voting never has anything to do with it, but things do change.
 
2012-10-26 02:46:38 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Things change.

Voting never has anything to do with it, but things do change.


I think of voting as a symptom of change rather than a cause.

But things are always changing, because that's how the universe works.
 
2012-10-26 03:06:48 PM  

ZeroCorpse: Nothing will change.

Nothing EVER changes.

Why don't you people see that?


We could with the fact that your conclusion is not true. That would get us a long way. Look, change has to be slow in a society with 300+ million members. Otherwise we'd have Syria-style shooting in the streets. But things do change even here in the USA. Twenty years ago it was unthinkable that we'd elect a Negro as President in 2008. It was also laughable that we'd have near-universal health care insurance. The idea that we'd have gays and lesbians openly serving in the military, not to mention an Army general marrying her same-sex partner, was ludicrous. Yet all of those monumental changes have come to pass, plus countless other less obvious ones. Moreover, ALL of those changes happened due to legislative changes, some of which occurred decades ago.

One has to be very young, very shallow or both to conclude that "the system is broken and nothing ever changes". Significant changes are ongoing all the time, and are arguably occurring about as fast as society can stand them.
 
2012-10-26 03:07:49 PM  

cman: qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: qorkfiend: cman: I am for gay marriage yet a lot of people cannot keep that in their memory and call me a hard line republican.

Maybe because you still vote for Republicans, i.e. people who aren't for gay marriage, so your personal belief means pretty much nothing?

No I don't. I am not voting for anyone who doesn't support them. That is why I am voting for Gary Johnson and one of the reasons why I am voting for Angus King. Obama supports gay marriage but not enough to bring it to a federal civil rights case. Romney wants to jail all homosexuals. Gary Johnson is the only one who wants to bring gay marriage federally.

Well, ok. I apologize; I had seen your "Not voting Obama" comment upthread (or in another thread...and it's also entirely possible it was someone else's comment) and immediately defaulted to Romney.

I like what I've heard about King.

When you say "Johnson wants to bring gay marriage federally," what does he mean? The official campaign website is pretty short on details. It also stops short of saying that there should be a federal law, only that "Government should not impose its values upon marriage." Would Johnson approve of a federal law to preempt state laws or amendments to state constitutions that ban gay marriage?

Also, this troubles me: "It should also protect the rights of religious organizations to follow their beliefs." This is all-too-often code for "allowed to discriminate if there's even a remote association to a religion".

This will enlighten you on his position of gay marriage

Still doesn't say what he plans to do about it. He's not in favor of Obama's approach, but we knew that already...

He supports gay marriage at a federal level. At the same time, he does not want to force religious institutions to preform them against their will. There will be churches out there who will perform gay weddings


Dude, churches are not required to perform ANY marriages, gay or straight. Their part of the deal is entirely ceremonial. The only thing that matters is that the marriage license is issued.
 
2012-10-26 03:30:04 PM  

Cythraul: vpb: That's about the best that can be hoped for until the spasm of bat-shiat crazy that has taken over the right subsides.

You think that will happen by 2016? I have a feeling we're only delaying for another four years until we get Bush 2.0.


I'm not worried about Bush 2.0, I'm worried about Ryan 1.0 or (Rand) Paul 1.0

The GOP is going to latch onto the "if we wait long enough on the far right sooner or later they're going to elect us president by default" if this election is remotely close.
 
Displayed 40 of 90 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report