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.

(Some Socialist)   The left have convinced themselves of fiction that Obama is the only chance they have for real social change. Of course, BSABSVR, so vote Obama anyways   (socialistworker.org) divider line 207
    More: Obvious, obama, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, SDS, Wall Street protests, fictions, Lyndon B. Johnson, historiographies  
•       •       •

1096 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2012 at 8:14 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-29 08:03:23 AM  
The word is anyway. Or do denie that, Subby?
 
2012-10-29 08:17:07 AM  
A well thought-out written article. Although I do not agree with your positions, I must say your presentation was first class

/This is how ye troll
 
2012-10-29 08:18:01 AM  
It was my understanding that everyone had heard that the bird is the word.
 
2012-10-29 08:18:50 AM  
Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.
 
2012-10-29 08:20:30 AM  
Socialism only works in extremely high trust societies, and even then things can go wrong. America is simply too big and diverse to be a society like that.
 
2012-10-29 08:20:53 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?
 
2012-10-29 08:21:21 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


Because you want a Romney presidency but aren't self loathing enough to actually vote for him?
 
2012-10-29 08:21:39 AM  

beta_plus: Socialism only works in extremely high trust societies, and even then things can go wrong. America is simply too big and diverse to be a society like that.


All large systems fail.
 
2012-10-29 08:22:14 AM  

mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?


BUT ROMENY == OBAMA!!!
 
2012-10-29 08:22:25 AM  
And what kind of 'social change' is the 'Right' offering us, Subby?
 
2012-10-29 08:23:28 AM  
I believe this is called tearing off your nose to spite your face?
 
2012-10-29 08:23:34 AM  

Cythraul: And what kind of 'social change' is the 'Right' offering us, Subby?


Feudalism is a kind of social change.
 
2012-10-29 08:23:41 AM  

beta_plus: Socialism only works in extremely high trust societies, and even then things can go wrong. America is simply too big and diverse to be a society like that.


Fortunately for us, we have a President who is anti-Socialist and has shown he is firmly in his record.
 
2012-10-29 08:23:49 AM  

beta_plus: Socialism only works in extremely high trust societies, and even then things can go wrong. America is simply too big and diverse to be a society like that.


I don't think socialism as a formal system of government works anywhere. Socialism as a useful toiol of civilization, on the other hand, works here and a lot of other places. Just like capitalism - it's a good idea that becomes a bad idea when it becomes an ideology.
Capitalism and socialism are tools, not philosophies.
 
2012-10-29 08:24:09 AM  
Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?
 
2012-10-29 08:24:28 AM  
Yeah--well this highlights a pretty relevant point: The extreme left isn't a part of the Democratic party. The extreme right IS the Republican Party.
 
2012-10-29 08:25:41 AM  

Altair: Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?


Yes, ignoring the incumbent during the election is always a great political move.

/Kucinich is the man!
//I'd vote for any hobbit that can land an amazon princess for a wife
 
2012-10-29 08:26:15 AM  

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

BUT ROMENY == OBAMA!!!


On all but maybe three issues, most related to women, yes.
 
2012-10-29 08:26:33 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Altair: Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?

Yes, ignoring the incumbent during the election is always a great political move.

/Kucinich is the man!
//I'd vote for any hobbit that can land an amazon princess for a wife


Was talking about 2008. Please try and keep up, will you?
 
2012-10-29 08:27:16 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


Because you think your vote will magically create a multiple party, parlimentarian system in the US?

Because you think Ralph Nader did this country a great service by electing Bush-Cheney?

Because you think compromise is as un-American?

Because you think both parties want war in Iran so you won't vote for either one?
 
2012-10-29 08:27:19 AM  

Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: BUT ROMENY == OBAMA!!!


Wait, Obama's a gypsy? I thought he was Kenyan!
 
2012-10-29 08:27:26 AM  

TimonC346: Yeah--well this highlights a pretty relevant point: The extreme left isn't a part of the Democratic party. The extreme right IS the Republican Party.


That statement, while essentially true, is liable to generate some fairly severe butthurt and denial.
 
2012-10-29 08:28:21 AM  
You are going to have to excuse me for not caring what socialists or libertarians think.


Ideological purity is a fools errand.
 
2012-10-29 08:28:38 AM  
Oh subby, it's too early to make me laugh this hard. I mean, an actual left wing in the United States? Next tell me about the unicorns.
 
2012-10-29 08:29:59 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


You live in Tennessee and your vote doesn't matter?
 
2012-10-29 08:30:39 AM  

Cythraul: And what kind of 'social change' is the 'Right' offering us, Subby?


Technically, replacing civil rights, gay rights and women's suffrage with a hardcore Christian theocracy is a type of social change.
 
2012-10-29 08:31:03 AM  

crab66: You are going to have to excuse me for not caring what socialists or libertarians think.


Ideological purity is a fools errand.


They try to turn things that are merely useful tools into holy grails of ideological rectitude. In their world-view, only their "thing" can ever work for anyone, anywhere.
 
2012-10-29 08:31:09 AM  

Girl From The North Country: The word is anyway. Or do denie that, Subby?


Just who do you think you are? Anyway?


// Senator, I knew Anyway. Anyway was a friend of mine. Senator, you are no Anyway...
 
2012-10-29 08:31:58 AM  

Boxcutta: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

You live in Tennessee and your vote doesn't matter?


I'm in Nebraska and my vote doesn't matter, ever!
 
2012-10-29 08:33:18 AM  

mat catastrophe: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

BUT ROMENY == OBAMA!!!

On all but maybe three issues, most related to women, yes.


War with Iran. Romney has said he will do it. Obama is trying his best to avoid it.

Romney and his neo-cons from the Bush administration think they can invade Iran with a volunteer force. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq; 1.5 million military went into Iraq. Romney will have to draft your loved ones--not his, your loved ones--to have his profit machine bust up Iran, one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.

And why? Not just because of profit but because of what used to be called the Wolfowitz doctrine--the US will not allow the rise of another super-power or world power. And if the neo-cons don't want Iran to reach the tipping point of world power, imagine how they feel about Communist China flexing over Asia.

Iran might not be Romney's only war if the neo-cons have anything to do with it.
 
2012-10-29 08:33:57 AM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-29 08:34:15 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


Exercise?
 
2012-10-29 08:34:35 AM  

Girl From The North Country: The word is anyway. Or do denie that, Subby?


Oh god! Now it's spreading to other threads!

i623.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-29 08:36:06 AM  
Anybody that still thinks Obama is a socialist is a farking moron
 
2012-10-29 08:38:02 AM  

cman: /This is how ye troll


Well done sir. LBJ's 'betrayal' of Students for a Democratic Society was 3rd degree burn stupid. The author was right about Clinton though, as president he did only slightly less damage than Bush.
 
2012-10-29 08:40:33 AM  

crab66: You are going to have to excuse me for not caring what socialists or libertarians think.


Ideological purity is a fools errand.

 
2012-10-29 08:42:30 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: mat catastrophe: Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

BUT ROMENY == OBAMA!!!

On all but maybe three issues, most related to women, yes.

War with Iran. Romney has said he will do it. Obama is trying his best to avoid it.

Romney and his neo-cons from the Bush administration think they can invade Iran with a volunteer force. Iran is 4 times the size of Iraq; 1.5 million military went into Iraq. Romney will have to draft your loved ones--not his, your loved ones--to have his profit machine bust up Iran, one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.

And why? Not just because of profit but because of what used to be called the Wolfowitz doctrine--the US will not allow the rise of another super-power or world power. And if the neo-cons don't want Iran to reach the tipping point of world power, imagine how they feel about Communist China flexing over Asia.

Iran might not be Romney's only war if the neo-cons have anything to do with it.


Ok, while that might be the Wolfowitz doctrine, Iran is not even remotely close to becoming a world power. At best they are a moderate power in the region, basically on par with Turkey. Remember, Iraq was their counter balance up until we kicked down their house.

You DO have a point about China, but you also forget that they make boatloads of money shipping our jobs there. They may bluster about Chinese currency manipulation, needing a bigger navy, etc. but in the end its all a magic show to keep us focused away from their other hand selling out the citizenry and cashing out the treasury.
 
2012-10-29 08:43:30 AM  

mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?


There were a number of Libertarian and Green party people on the ballot for me on the non-Big Election items. Of course, they were running for President/Senators as well.
 
2012-10-29 08:44:04 AM  

jso2897: beta_plus: Socialism only works in extremely high trust societies, and even then things can go wrong. America is simply too big and diverse to be a society like that.

I don't think socialism as a formal system of government works anywhere. Socialism as a useful toiol of civilization, on the other hand, works here and a lot of other places. Just like capitalism - it's a good idea that becomes a bad idea when it becomes an ideology.
Capitalism and socialism are tools, not philosophies.



Tools. Exactly. And sometimes one is needed to help the other - like when bankers show up in DC and tell the President that if the People don't fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to keep their CAPITALIST bank afloat, then the whole US economy melt down.

Motherfarkers have no problem with redistribution of wealth, only the vectors,
 
2012-10-29 08:45:43 AM  
I see Obama's presidency as an indication that this country isn't too far gone, that there's still some chance we can move back to the center.
 
2012-10-29 08:49:44 AM  
Headline: The left have convinced themselves of fiction that Obama is the only chance they have for real social change. Of course, Both sides are bad, so vote republican, so vote Obama anyways

You're an idiot subs.

/MSM MAINSTREAM MEDIA
 
2012-10-29 08:50:46 AM  

Captain_Ballbeard: j
Tools. Exactly. And sometimes one is needed to help the other - like when bankers show up in DC and tell the President that if the People don't fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to keep their CAPITALIST bank afloat, then the whole US economy melt down.

Motherfarkers have no problem with redistribution of wealth, only the vectors,


Do you call reuniting kidnapped children with their parents 'redistribution'?

The 0.1% like to think of it of as being reunited with their long lost money. Totally different.
 
2012-10-29 08:51:05 AM  
Subby, if you're gonna use a cool acronym like 'BSABSVR', you should try and figure out what it stands for, otherwise you have a sentence that ends up saying: 'both sides are bad so vote Republican, so vote Obama', which is an insult to everyone who actually submitted a good headline, but didn't get the green.
 
2012-10-29 08:54:04 AM  
Many liberal Democrats are disappointed in Obama but this disappointment is totally their fault. They've have created an Obama of their own mind and imagination; an Obama that doesn't really exist. He was the vehicle of their hopes but only in their minds. In reality he never was an engine for real change. He is just Republican-lite; the leader of the other corporate party. Neither of the 2 major parties really represents the working man nor do they stand for fair distribution of the wealth of our nation. An Obama reelection will only at best be marginally better than a Romney victory and could be worse.
 
2012-10-29 08:56:27 AM  
Calling out Farker in headline.
 
2012-10-29 08:56:56 AM  
Strategy. A simple, 2x2 game theory matrix with the goal of minimizing loss. *That's* why I will vote for Obama.

/in the end, protest/ideological votes garner you nothing - the air of superiority quickly wears off
//you really want more hard-right scotus justices? really?
/because that's what 'not voting for obama' boils down to
 
2012-10-29 08:58:41 AM  

Amdam: Anybody that still thinks Obama is a socialist is a farking moron


Socialist is just a code word for n****r. I thought that was understood. Please try to keep up.
 
2012-10-29 08:58:50 AM  
His evidence for a left-wing resurgence is pretty thin. The anti-war movement failed, the Walker recall failed, occupy failed. Sure more people are interested in radical politics than have been over the last 20 years, but they are direction-less, disorganised and bereft of ideas. Ultimately, nobody, not even the left can conceive of a realistic alternative to a global capitalism dominated by finance. The fact is that we're living in a deeply reactionary time and there are few options available, so you end up voting for moderate conservatives like Barak Obama.
 
2012-10-29 08:59:00 AM  

vpb: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Exercise?


I'm actually trying to decide to vote early or next Tuesday when I can walk to my polling place, because I've never done that before.
 
2012-10-29 08:59:09 AM  
Here's the thing: the two parties are constantly renegotiating their platforms to keep the balance somewhere close to 50/50 with respect to the population. If you don't like the Democratic Party platform because it isn't liberal enough, then the best thing you can do is to contribute to a Democratic supermajority. If you vote Democrat earnestly and help them get 70 Senators and 70% of congress (Alas! A pipe dream!), the party will begin to have a serious discussion about how far to the left they can step while still holding onto a majority of voters.
 
2012-10-29 08:59:13 AM  

gameshowhost: Strategy. A simple, 2x2 game theory matrix with the goal of minimizing loss. *That's* why I will vote for Obama.

/in the end, protest/ideological votes garner you nothing - the air of superiority quickly wears off
//you really want more hard-right scotus justices? really?
/because that's what 'not voting for obama' boils down to


I like the scare approach. Damn does it work well. Vote for Obama or ROMNEY WILL WIN OMG THE EARTH IS GONNA SHAKE RATTLE AND ROLL AND THE REPTILIANS WILL DESCEND FROM THE SKYS
 
2012-10-29 09:00:01 AM  

runwiz: An Obama reelection will only at best be marginally better than a Romney victory and could be worse.


Not for women, soldiers, black people, Hispanic people, gay people or people without health insurance.
 
2012-10-29 09:01:10 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Not for women, soldiers, black people, Hispanic people, gay people or people without health insurance.


His job isn't to worry about those people.
 
2012-10-29 09:02:57 AM  

jso2897: I don't think socialism as a formal system of government works anywhere. Socialism as a useful toiol of civilization, on the other hand, works here and a lot of other places. Just like capitalism - it's a good idea that becomes a bad idea when it becomes an ideology.
Capitalism and socialism are tools, not philosophies.


Actually capitalism and socialism are philosophies and not tools.
 
2012-10-29 09:04:58 AM  
The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.
 
2012-10-29 09:06:03 AM  
You all vote to the right of the reagan now.
 
2012-10-29 09:06:35 AM  
Both sides are bad so vote Republican so vote Obama anyway?
 
2012-10-29 09:08:22 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.


And the criminalization of homosexuality.
 
2012-10-29 09:09:40 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.


Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible
 
2012-10-29 09:11:47 AM  

Amdam: Anybody that still thinks Obama is a socialist is a farking moron


socialistpartyp.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-29 09:12:12 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible


I don't think he'd try to 'criminalize' homosexuality. But he'd definitely sign that constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He may also even try to return to DADT.
 
2012-10-29 09:13:18 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible


He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.
 
2012-10-29 09:13:47 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


President Romney thanks you for your vote.
 
2012-10-29 09:16:13 AM  

PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.


Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.
 
2012-10-29 09:17:47 AM  
You didn't think through the implications of your strategy of voting for dems no matter how corporatist and authoritarian they could possibly become and now your party is essentially the early 1990's republican party because the dems realize they can move as far away from you as they want to pick up the middle and corporate cash and you progressives will not only vote in lock step but still canvas and contribute as well. You marginalized yourself. Brilliant.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:30 AM  
I like this because it misrepresents and insults both parties. It's like if Fark and Free Republic had a baby and the placenta got put up on the Internet.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:39 AM  

Muta: jso2897: I don't think socialism as a formal system of government works anywhere. Socialism as a useful toiol of civilization, on the other hand, works here and a lot of other places. Just like capitalism - it's a good idea that becomes a bad idea when it becomes an ideology.
Capitalism and socialism are tools, not philosophies.

Actually capitalism and socialism are philosophies and not tools.


That's what ideologues believe, yes. I am stating my disagreement with them, if that isn't clear.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:43 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.

Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.


Yeah, PonceAlyshoa, I have to agree with cman here. Romney would be no friend to the gays, but I can't see him lining us up for 're-education camps,' or anything like that.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:46 AM  

make me some tea: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

President Romney thanks you for your vote.


I find it quite funny how well that kind of marketing works.

Fear is a hell of a good selling point. You are appealing to one of the most basic ancient emotions.

Republicans ran with VOTE FOR US LEST 911 2.0 HAPPENS in 2004. They got a lot of votes from that. Now the Dems are using it to convince those who are disappointed with Obama to ensure that they still have the White House.
 
2012-10-29 09:18:46 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.

Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.


Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.
 
2012-10-29 09:19:00 AM  

cman: PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.

Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.


Guess what asshole, some of us can not afford to hedge our bets. Some of us are farking tired of being a political football. I take the man at his word, if he does not want to be associated with homophobia he shouldn't make it part of his platform.
 
2012-10-29 09:20:47 AM  

Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.


I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.
 
2012-10-29 09:21:52 AM  
I used to take the Green Party seriously. Then they nominated Shiella Mckinney for president in 08. That pretty much ended my interest in third parties.
 
2012-10-29 09:22:48 AM  

make me some tea: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

President Romney thanks you for your vote.


Cut GAT_00 a break, he lives in Tennessee. He may as well cast a vote that means something.
 
2012-10-29 09:23:44 AM  

PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: cman: PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.

Yeah, that aint happening at all. You are full of it if you think that way. Romney is an asshole flip-flopping idiot but outlawing homosexuality is not possible

He promised to amend the constitution to make it impossible for people of the same sex to get married. And that is only day one.

Banning gay marriage is not outlawing homosexual relations. Sure it is a stupid hateful thing to do indeed, but Romney wouldn't dare to even submit that much. Romney is a politician who says a lot of shiat to get elected. However, he is pretty damn moderate in many respects. If Romney became President he would not submit such a constitutional amendment. I could see Santorum doing it, but not Romney.

Guess what asshole, some of us can not afford to hedge our bets. Some of us are farking tired of being a political football. I take the man at his word, if he does not want to be associated with homophobia he shouldn't make it part of his platform.


I understand your frustration. I am pro-gay marriage myself. Unlike Obama, however, I dont think this should be left to the states to decide. It should be a federal civil rights issue.

Things are changing. They are not at the pace that most of us are comfortable with, but they are changing. It is only a matter of time until a man and another man can get a marriage license in Texas. It sucks that you have to wait for rights (not privileges).
 
2012-10-29 09:24:10 AM  

mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?


Yeah, voting for the lesser of two evils has worked out so great for the past 60 years, let's keep doing it!

Vote for whoever you want (Obama, Romney, Stein, Johnson or wheover the fark you want), and fark those who try to tell you otherwise.
 
2012-10-29 09:26:34 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.


This. Romney's personal beliefs don't matter because he doesn't farking have any.
 
2012-10-29 09:27:48 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.


Cythraul: Yeah, PonceAlyshoa, I have to agree withcman here. Romney would be no friend to the gays, but I can't see him lining us up for 're-education camps,' or anything like that.


cman: Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.

I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.


Sorry, but you're wrong. These people won't stop. They passed DOMA, that wasn't enough. They banned gays from the military and that wasn't enough. They fought tooth and nail against Lawrence Vs. Texas. To imagine they're done because the Supreme Court ruled is lunacy. The Supreme ruled on Roe Vs. Wade decades ago they're still trying to get rid of it, still fighting their retarded fight. These people aren't just going to go away. There is a huge political impetus to remove the ability for people like us to live like normal farking people with the same rights as everyone else. They won't stop. Don't give them inch, they'll take a farking mile.
 
2012-10-29 09:27:52 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.


This. If there's one thing Rmoney has made clear during his campaign (and it may be literally the only thing) it's that his actual opinions on any issue take a backseat to his personal advancement.
 
2012-10-29 09:29:54 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Amdam: Anybody that still thinks Obama is a socialist is a farking moron

[socialistpartyp.files.wordpress.com image 500x334]


"Honk if you're paying my mortgage" doesn't even make any sense.
 
2012-10-29 09:30:06 AM  
It's funny really that even while whining about Obama he still manages to be... Completely wrong about everything.

could not be more different from the high hopes and expectations that surrounded his 2008 campaign

Something about Obama being an incompetent idiot who was completely unqualified for the office has everything to do with that. Aside from that, his sanctimonious garbage ran up against cold hard reality once he got in office and had to face facts.

pointing out the disgusting racist attacks on Obama
explains why opinion polls suggest he will get close to 0 percent of the Black vote.
racist racist racist...!


Are there some racists that don't like Obama? Of course.

But one day it will get through your very thick skull that well in excess of 95% of the people who don't like Obama don't give a rats rear end about his race and would dislike him just as much if he were any race.

We dislike him for precisely the same reason we dislike every other liberal, because his ideas are terrible and they will screw up everything in the name of "fairness".

There can be no doubt that Mitt Romney in office will do his damnedest to makes things worse for all workers and poor people, but especially for people of color.

Have you checked the unemployment rate for African Americans lately? In no way, shape, or form are they better off now than they were four years ago. 5 trillion in debt, soaring numbers of people on welfare and other government assistance programs, economic growth nearly stagnant. The 'workers' and particularly people of color had better hope to hell Obama doesn't get reelected based on his track record.

As opposed to Mitt Romney. Did you want one example? Dunkin Donuts. I would imagine that the people working there now who still have a job... You know 'workers'... Really appreciate still having a job.

But.. but that one steel company! Romney did terrible things...!

Yes, clearly, he did all those "terrible" things while saving three other steel companies. Sorta doesn't fit in to the whole 'evil corporate' raider thing when you consider the whole picture now does it? Do you suppose the 'workers' at those steel companies are glad they still have a job?
 
2012-10-29 09:30:21 AM  

cman: Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.

I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.


Federal court also ruled against abortion restrictions twice, but that won't stop Mittens. The fact that a case was settled means very little when you're an ideologue (or beholden to them).
 
2012-10-29 09:31:23 AM  

mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?


The most telling part of the third party debate was the last question. If they were given a guarantee to pass on one constitutional amendment of their choice, what would they pick? None of them picked anything that would let third parties compete.

They're morons.
 
2012-10-29 09:32:06 AM  

Dr Dreidel: cman: Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.

I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.

Federal court also ruled against abortion restrictions twice, but that won't stop Mittens. The fact that a case was settled means very little when you're an ideologue (or beholden to them).


And even what's been discussed thus far completely ignores the still standing discriminatory policies against homosexuals in adoption, housing, employment, visitation rights and everything else you straight mother farkers take for granted.
 
2012-10-29 09:33:57 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Dr Dreidel: cman: Cythraul: He may also even try to return to DADT.

I think that one is a lost cause. DADT is dead and it isnt coming back.

Federal court ruled against it.

Federal court also ruled against abortion restrictions twice, but that won't stop Mittens. The fact that a case was settled means very little when you're an ideologue (or beholden to them).

And even what's been discussed thus far completely ignores the still standing discriminatory policies against homosexuals in adoption, housing, employment, visitation rights and everything else you straight mother farkers take for granted.


Thats why we still have got to fight for that shiat. Passing federal civil rights laws recognizing homosexual marriage will take care of all of those problems. There will be hiccups along the way of course, but it will happen.
 
2012-10-29 09:34:45 AM  

GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.


Tennessee? Yeah, doesn't matter who you vote for.

I'm in Kentucky and I may do a write-in vote for Magneto
 
2012-10-29 09:34:53 AM  

sprawl15: mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

The most telling part of the third party debate was the last question. If they were given a guarantee to pass on one constitutional amendment of their choice, what would they pick? None of them picked anything that would let third parties compete.

They're morons.


They're not morons, at least not for that reason, they're ideologues rather than political operators [example Santorum vs. Romney]. You'd need a party exclusively devoted to government access for third parties to get anything done, as their goal wouldn't be able to be subsumed by one of the major party platforms ,unlike the Libertarians or the Greens whose electoral base gets a bone thrown to them by the two major parties every so often.
 
2012-10-29 09:35:04 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Romney's personal beliefs don't matter because he doesn't farking have any.


Actually, that was a little hyperbolic; he does have two apparently-firm personal beliefs.

Of course, neither "Tax cuts for the rich" nor "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" have much to do with gay rights or other social issues.
 
2012-10-29 09:36:38 AM  

cman: Thats why we still have got to fight for that shiat. Passing federal civil rights laws recognizing homosexual marriage will take care of all of those problems. There will be hiccups along the way of course, but it will happen.


Actually it won't help reduce adoption, hiring or housing discrimination at all. Those need to be solved by the passing of actual statutes, which has to happen locally unless the Feds are going to pass a gay version of the Civil Rights Acts.
 
2012-10-29 09:37:18 AM  

Altair: Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?


I was too busy checking out his wife.
 
2012-10-29 09:38:32 AM  

PonceAlyosha: They're not morons, at least not for that reason, they're ideologues rather than political operators [example Santorum vs. Romney]. You'd need a party exclusively devoted to government access for third parties to get anything done, as their goal wouldn't be able to be subsumed by one of the major party platforms ,unlike the Libertarians or the Greens whose electoral base gets a bone thrown to them by the two major parties every so often.


No, they are morons, specifically for that reason. They spent the pre-show doing nothing but whining about the two party system and half the debate whining about the two party system, and when they were offered one question where they could have offered a solution to the two party system they picked a bunch of utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the fundamental political issues.

The greatest threat to our democracy right now is the inability of the electorate to be represented. Both parties know the score, and they play the two party system to the hilt. And this problem can ONLY be solved by deep Constitutional meddling. The third parties seem to simply not know the score and are content simply complaining and whining.
 
2012-10-29 09:39:01 AM  
I like the idea that it should be fine to vote anyone into power, whether Hitler or a member of the KKK, or Romney, because the worst parts of their ideology probably wouldn't be able to be put in place.
 
2012-10-29 09:41:45 AM  

Cythraul: And what kind of 'social change' is the 'Right' offering us, Subby?


Everything will be mandated to be just like a 50's TV show, even down to being in black and white (except no black)
 
2012-10-29 09:42:09 AM  

sprawl15: PonceAlyosha: They're not morons, at least not for that reason, they're ideologues rather than political operators [example Santorum vs. Romney]. You'd need a party exclusively devoted to government access for third parties to get anything done, as their goal wouldn't be able to be subsumed by one of the major party platforms ,unlike the Libertarians or the Greens whose electoral base gets a bone thrown to them by the two major parties every so often.

No, they are morons, specifically for that reason. They spent the pre-show doing nothing but whining about the two party system and half the debate whining about the two party system, and when they were offered one question where they could have offered a solution to the two party system they picked a bunch of utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the fundamental political issues.

The greatest threat to our democracy right now is the inability of the electorate to be represented. Both parties know the score, and they play the two party system to the hilt. And this problem can ONLY be solved by deep Constitutional meddling. The third parties seem to simply not know the score and are content simply complaining and whining.


There is a big problem with constitutional reformation. Many of us want the people to choose what we in the third party have to offer. If the people dont want it, they shouldnt be forced to accept it. We will do our damnedest to ensure that our message gets out there, but giving ourselves a little of a leg up is simply undemocratic.
 
2012-10-29 09:42:48 AM  

sprawl15: PonceAlyosha: They're not morons, at least not for that reason, they're ideologues rather than political operators [example Santorum vs. Romney]. You'd need a party exclusively devoted to government access for third parties to get anything done, as their goal wouldn't be able to be subsumed by one of the major party platforms ,unlike the Libertarians or the Greens whose electoral base gets a bone thrown to them by the two major parties every so often.

No, they are morons, specifically for that reason. They spent the pre-show doing nothing but whining about the two party system and half the debate whining about the two party system, and when they were offered one question where they could have offered a solution to the two party system they picked a bunch of utter nonsense that had nothing to do with the fundamental political issues.

The greatest threat to our democracy right now is the inability of the electorate to be represented. Both parties know the score, and they play the two party system to the hilt. And this problem can ONLY be solved by deep Constitutional meddling. The third parties seem to simply not know the score and are content simply complaining and whining.



Your picture is on the BSABSVR poster.
 
2012-10-29 09:44:21 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.

This. Romney's personal beliefs don't matter because he doesn't farking have any.


He believes he's been chosen by God to lead America and start a dynasty that will last a thousand years.

Really. No shiat.
 
2012-10-29 09:44:56 AM  

bmongar: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want a Romney presidency but aren't self loathing enough to actually vote for him?


Terrified Asexual Forcemeat: mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

BUT ROMENY == OBAMA!!!


mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

 

So, it's three to one enablers of the Republican-Democratic Electoral Machine to people who actually do something about it?

/If those numbers were reversed, third parties might actually have a chance.
//But no, don't throw your vote away. Save it for when it will be more valuable.
 
2012-10-29 09:46:17 AM  

PonceAlyosha: cman: Thats why we still have got to fight for that shiat. Passing federal civil rights laws recognizing homosexual marriage will take care of all of those problems. There will be hiccups along the way of course, but it will happen.

Actually it won't help reduce adoption, hiring or housing discrimination at all. Those need to be solved by the passing of actual statutes, which has to happen locally unless the Feds are going to pass a gay version of the Civil Rights Acts.


The administration could do a lot right now. They hand out a lot of cash, and I'm not seeing whatbis stopping them from tying much of it to an expansive reading of the equal protecyion clause.
 
2012-10-29 09:46:33 AM  

Altair: Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?


...that's cute, thinking Kucinich is a socialist.

/Americans wouldn't know a real socialist if he bit them in the ass.
 
2012-10-29 09:47:59 AM  

Altair: Oh we're still pushing the "Obama = Socialist's Hope" narrative? Damn. I guess that's why liberals completely ignored Kucinich en masse during the primaries, huh?


It should be more clear that you were referring to 2008 Kucinich. 2012 Kucinich deserved what he got -- even though his 2010 vote wouldn't have made or broke the ACA, he supported a mandate to purchase a corporate product that's not even regulated by anti-trust regulations, which will feed the private health insurance industry with guaranteed subsidies. The industry fought tooth and nail to prevent single payer or a "public option", and they'll have even more resources than ever before to fight against such reform. Not nearly enough people in this country are bold enough to go beyond the two party system, so we are never going to have single payer. Ever.

/Voting for Stein
 
2012-10-29 09:48:00 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you think your vote will magically create a multiple party, parlimentarian system in the US?

Because you think Ralph Nader did this country a great service by electing Bush-Cheney?

Because you think compromise is as un-American?

Because you think both parties want war in Iran so you won't vote for either one?


Okay, four to one.

/The worst crimes ever levied against humanity were more due to society's inaction than man's action.
 
2012-10-29 09:49:34 AM  

cman: There is a big problem with constitutional reformation.


If you were given one constitutional amendment, guaranteed to pass, what would you pick? Two people said term limits. Anderson proposed a sexual discrimination ban. Stein proposed something to overturn citizens united. Aside from Anderson, they're all looking to improve representation of the individual, but picking pissant problems to address rather than serious issues.

cman: Many of us want the people to choose what we in the third party have to offer. If the people dont want it, they shouldnt be forced to accept it. We will do our damnedest to ensure that our message gets out there, but giving ourselves a little of a leg up is simply undemocratic.


Without a shift to proportional representation (I don't even think IRV is enough), third parties are simply a joke. Period. I mean, I make fun of RONPAUL all day, but fundamentally if 10% of the populace wants to be in a RONPAUL party, then 10% of our representatives should be RONPAUL-oriented. I'd continue to make fun of them, but that's how it needs to work. And I'm just some asshole on the internet; I'm not running for president.
 
2012-10-29 09:50:25 AM  

ghare: Your picture is on the BSABSVR poster.


lolwut
 
2012-10-29 09:51:06 AM  

sprawl15: If you were given one constitutional amendment, guaranteed to pass, what would you pick? Two people said term limits. Anderson proposed a sexual discrimination ban. Stein proposed something to overturn citizens united. Aside from Anderson, they're all looking to improve representation of the individual, but picking pissant problems to address rather than serious issues.


There is only one thing that matters to me this election, and it is how I am basing my vote on. I want a constitutional amendment recognizing the right for homosexuals to wed.
 
2012-10-29 09:52:14 AM  
Appropriate in so many threads today:

www.bitlogic.com
 
2012-10-29 09:53:36 AM  

cman: sprawl15: If you were given one constitutional amendment, guaranteed to pass, what would you pick? Two people said term limits. Anderson proposed a sexual discrimination ban. Stein proposed something to overturn citizens united. Aside from Anderson, they're all looking to improve representation of the individual, but picking pissant problems to address rather than serious issues.

There is only one thing that matters to me this election, and it is how I am basing my vote on. I want a constitutional amendment recognizing the right for homosexuals to wed.


We already have the 14th Amendment, we don't need another one to reaffirm it.
 
2012-10-29 09:54:02 AM  

ghare: Your picture is on the BSABSVR poster.


I'm pretty sure that Sprawl would cut his own head off before he'd vote for Romney.

ghare: He believes he's been chosen by God to lead America and start a dynasty that will last a thousand years. Really. No shiat.


All snark aside, I generally leave the Space Jesus thing alone (as insane and amusing as it is) because he doesn't really behave like he even believes in that. He might, sure, but judging by his actions, his only God is the Almighty Dollar.
 
2012-10-29 09:54:48 AM  

cman: There is only one thing that matters to me this election, and it is how I am basing my vote on. I want a constitutional amendment recognizing the right for homosexuals to wed.


I really don't think it's necessary. At all.

Instead of adding on amendments specifically recognizing the rights of whatever new minority group begins to take footing, there should be a straightforward shift of interpretation of the idea of equal protection to actually mean equal protection. The idea of amendments to let people have rights is silly and contrary to the intent of the Constitution - it's essentially arguing that the Constitution grants rights, rather than forcing the government to respect these inherent rights.

Basically, gay people have always had the right to marry, the government has just been unconstitutionally restricting it.
 
2012-10-29 09:57:33 AM  
The last October Surprise will be Romney coming out in Blackface and telling everyone: Both sides are Black, so vote republican!
 
2012-10-29 09:57:40 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Philip Francis Queeg: Romney will sign whatever regressive, hateful legislation the Eric Cantor sends his way. If you think he will stand for a second for "moderation" against the radicals in his party you are delusional.

This. Romney's personal beliefs don't matter because he doesn't farking have any.


He has one belief. He believes he deserves to be President.
 
2012-10-29 09:57:58 AM  

PonceAlyosha: cman: sprawl15: If you were given one constitutional amendment, guaranteed to pass, what would you pick? Two people said term limits. Anderson proposed a sexual discrimination ban. Stein proposed something to overturn citizens united. Aside from Anderson, they're all looking to improve representation of the individual, but picking pissant problems to address rather than serious issues.

There is only one thing that matters to me this election, and it is how I am basing my vote on. I want a constitutional amendment recognizing the right for homosexuals to wed.

We already have the 14th Amendment, we don't need another one to reaffirm it.


Be that as it may, I want it in stone so no one can do some funny business to deny any sort of equal rights by playing on semantics. A constitutional amendment would ensure that the courts will rule the right way

sprawl15: cman: There is only one thing that matters to me this election, and it is how I am basing my vote on. I want a constitutional amendment recognizing the right for homosexuals to wed.

I really don't think it's necessary. At all.

Instead of adding on amendments specifically recognizing the rights of whatever new minority group begins to take footing, there should be a straightforward shift of interpretation of the idea of equal protection to actually mean equal protection. The idea of amendments to let people have rights is silly and contrary to the intent of the Constitution - it's essentially arguing that the Constitution grants rights, rather than forcing the government to respect these inherent rights.

Basically, gay people have always had the right to marry, the government has just been unconstitutionally restricting it.


Likewise see above
 
2012-10-29 09:58:50 AM  

cman: There is only one thing that matters to me this election, and it is how I am basing my vote on. I want a constitutional amendment recognizing the right for homosexuals to wed.


... Then shouldn't you be voting for Obama, not Johnson?
 
2012-10-29 09:58:58 AM  

cman: Likewise see above


It's a pointless exercise and requires much more waiting, time, effort and most importantly UNCERTAINTY than simply letting the judicial process go through its motions.
 
2012-10-29 10:00:24 AM  

PonceAlyosha: Philip Francis Queeg: The election of Romney will bring real social change.

The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

And the criminalization of homosexuality.


I've been pissed at these unsegregated schools for a long time too, I want my America back.
 
2012-10-29 10:01:26 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: The last October Surprise will be Romney coming out in Blackface and telling everyone: Both sides are Black, so vote republican!


Didn't he put on fake tan cream when he gave a speech for a Hispanic American group a couple of weeks ago? If so, it seems he's already tried that.
 
2012-10-29 10:01:57 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: cman: There is only one thing that matters to me this election, and it is how I am basing my vote on. I want a constitutional amendment recognizing the right for homosexuals to wed.

... Then shouldn't you be voting for Obama, not Johnson?


Johnson wants to make it a federal civil rights case. Obama is perfectly content with letting the states decide if they want it or not.

Johnson has the leg up on this one for me.
 
2012-10-29 10:02:39 AM  

sprawl15: ghare: Your picture is on the BSABSVR poster.

lolwut


I just go by the rule that anyone who says "BSABSVR" is automatically a dumbass and should be given mittens so they don't cut themselves with the safety scissors.
 
2012-10-29 10:02:48 AM  

PonceAlyosha: cman: sprawl15: If you were given one constitutional amendment, guaranteed to pass, what would you pick? Two people said term limits. Anderson proposed a sexual discrimination ban. Stein proposed something to overturn citizens united. Aside from Anderson, they're all looking to improve representation of the individual, but picking pissant problems to address rather than serious issues.

There is only one thing that matters to me this election, and it is how I am basing my vote on. I want a constitutional amendment recognizing the right for homosexuals to wed.

We already have the 14th Amendment, we don't need another one to reaffirm it.


Kind of do.
It has all the force of a half starved kitten. It can be overidden by the state's desire to create a diverse lesrning enviorment on the fiction that it helps foster learning in a 1L torts course. It doesn't apply to latinos within 500 miles of the border, or gay people anywhere. You couldn't tell it existed at all if you just looked at federal and state policy.
 
2012-10-29 10:04:36 AM  
The left have convinced themselves that Obama is the only chance they have for real social change because Obama is the only chance they have for real social change.

Obama, himself, is not a leftie. Not by a longshot. However, he is left of the Republicans. The Republicans are cocoa-puffs cuckoo far right. And with every Republican victory, the Overton window shifts a little more, making cocoa-puffs cuckoo far right just a little more acceptable and being a leftie just a little less. fark, take a look around. Watch some political ads. Candidates will fight about which one's more conservative, while "liberal" is a farking swear word.

Is Obama going to change that reality? No, probably not. But he can shift the window a little to the left. The guy, though he isn't a liberal, has been tarred and feathered as one since he first ran for office. The more people like him get elected, the more the window shifts back to the left, and the more electable actual liberals become.
 
2012-10-29 10:06:08 AM  

sprawl15: cman: There is a big problem with constitutional reformation.

If you were given one constitutional amendment, guaranteed to pass, what would you pick? Two people said term limits. Anderson proposed a sexual discrimination ban. Stein proposed something to overturn citizens united. Aside from Anderson, they're all looking to improve representation of the individual, but picking pissant problems to address rather than serious issues.

cman: Many of us want the people to choose what we in the third party have to offer. If the people dont want it, they shouldnt be forced to accept it. We will do our damnedest to ensure that our message gets out there, but giving ourselves a little of a leg up is simply undemocratic.

Without a shift to proportional representation (I don't even think IRV is enough), third parties are simply a joke. Period. I mean, I make fun of RONPAUL all day, but fundamentally if 10% of the populace wants to be in a RONPAUL party, then 10% of our representatives should be RONPAUL-oriented. I'd continue to make fun of them, but that's how it needs to work. And I'm just some asshole on the internet; I'm not running for president.


My preeference is for elimination of the EC, institution of IRV and establishing Congressional representation:population to equal 1:250000, giving more of a parlimentary House which would provide a means for alternate parties to establish themselves. I'd also like to see better access to the ballot, require free advertising on public airwaves and campaign contributions limited to $200 per individual or entity.

To resolve the whole SUPERPAC fiasco, I would require all those 501 organizaitons to spend a minimum of 50% of their revenue on actual direct-action that excludes advertisement in order to maintain their "charitable organization" standing.
 
2012-10-29 10:07:15 AM  

cman: Johnson wants to make it a federal civil rights case. Obama is perfectly content with letting the states decide if they want it or not.


Johnson's also more likely to be abducted by three-headed aliens and mutated into a pop music superstar for the amusement of the Alpha Centaurians than win. I'm not going to argue about the 14th Amendment vs a new amendment, because you're both right and either works for me, but by voting for Johnson you might as well be voting for Romney. Sorry, but it's true.
 
2012-10-29 10:07:37 AM  

relcec: Kind of do.
It has all the force of a half starved kitten. It can be overidden by the state's desire to create a diverse lesrning enviorment on the fiction that it helps foster learning in a 1L torts course. It doesn't apply to latinos within 500 miles of the border, or gay people anywhere. You couldn't tell it existed at all if you just looked at federal and state policy.


But can you see the problem with that plan? If we can't trust the states to abide by it now, how can we expect 3/4ths of them to pass a constitutional amendment empowering that language?
 
2012-10-29 10:15:51 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: ghare: Your picture is on the BSABSVR poster.

I'm pretty sure that Sprawl would cut his own head off before he'd vote for Romney.

ghare: He believes he's been chosen by God to lead America and start a dynasty that will last a thousand years. Really. No shiat.

All snark aside, I generally leave the Space Jesus thing alone (as insane and amusing as it is) because he doesn't really behave like he even believes in that. He might, sure, but judging by his actions, his only God is the Almighty Dollar.


For the LDS Church, money being god isn't a totally inaccurate accusation. It is one of the biggest pyramid schemes in the world, you know.
 
2012-10-29 10:16:55 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: The last October Surprise will be Romney coming out in Blackface and telling everyone: Both sides are Black, so vote republican!


cdn.uproxx.com

"I'd give a million notes for a box full of votes for my Rommmmmney!!1!"

/Both sides are black but we're lighter skinned so vote Republican!
 
2012-10-29 10:17:15 AM  
I am starting to harbor a suspicion that self styled leftists such as Todd Cretin actually *want* the Republicans in power nationally.

What was the cause that permitted Cretin and his ilk to galvanize the most public support in the last ten years? Why, the war in Iraq, of course. Groups like ANSWER were able to organize demonstrations against the Iraq war that drew hundreds of thousands of people here.

It was as clear as crystal in 2000 that a George W Bush administration would be much more likely than an Al Gore administration to go off on an aggressive adventure in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Ralph Nader and his supporters continued to insist right down to election day that there was no difference at all between Bush and Gore. Turned out that there was, wasn't there?

So Bush won the election (we can of course give a lot of credit to Nader for that, for siphoning votes off from Gore) and got his aggressive war, and Todd Cretin and his friends got to feel good about themselves by organizing a bunch of big demonstrations against that war. It was win-win all around for them--but not for the rest of us. Personally, I'd have preferred to see Gore elected, Saddam still in power in Iraq, and Todd Cretin busying himself with organizing 500 person demonstrations against whatever it is that he believes to be the most outrageous injustice of the day.
 
2012-10-29 10:17:28 AM  

PonceAlyosha: relcec: Kind of do.
It has all the force of a half starved kitten. It can be overidden by the state's desire to create a diverse lesrning enviorment on the fiction that it helps foster learning in a 1L torts course. It doesn't apply to latinos within 500 miles of the border, or gay people anywhere. You couldn't tell it existed at all if you just looked at federal and state policy.

But can you see the problem with that plan? If we can't trust the states to abide by it now, how can we expect 3/4ths of them to pass a constitutional amendment empowering that language?


The fed is responsible for most of that. But yeah, impossible. Too many people on both sides of isle think state sponsored discrmination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation is not only proper, but necessary. Impossible. But the court will change its opinion as public opinion shifts. They always do. Just biatching about one of the two most important amenments being worth about a used diaper to both the left and right.
 
2012-10-29 10:18:55 AM  

Fluorescent Testicle: cman: Johnson wants to make it a federal civil rights case. Obama is perfectly content with letting the states decide if they want it or not.

Johnson's also more likely to be abducted by three-headed aliens and mutated into a pop music superstar for the amusement of the Alpha Centaurians than win. I'm not going to argue about the 14th Amendment vs a new amendment, because you're both right and either works for me, but by voting for Johnson you might as well be voting for Romney. Sorry, but it's true.


I am gonna go into that polling place on the 6th and happily check the box next to Johnsons name. I will be leaving with my head held high that I voted based upon my conscience, not upon trying to defend against someone else from getting the office. I live in Maine, and I pretty much guarantee you that Obama is taking the state and all three of the EC votes (our EC votes are not stacked and can be split). I hate Romney. I hate what he stands for. That farker is a phony asshole who will say whatever just to appease whomever is in the crowd. At the same time, I cannot vote for Obama. If he were to come out in favor of federal recognition of gay marriage he would have a better chance for my vote. My older sister means the world to me, and the fact that she cannot get married to her girlfriend tears me the fark apart.
 
2012-10-29 10:21:58 AM  

relcec: Just biatching about one of the two most important amenments being worth about a used diaper to both the left and right.


Who exactly does the "left" discriminate against?
 
2012-10-29 10:24:09 AM  
I gave up thinking Obama would push for any real social change years ago. He seems content to be a conservative president.
 
2012-10-29 10:27:28 AM  

PonceAlyosha: relcec: Just biatching about one of the two most important amenments being worth about a used diaper to both the left and right.

Who exactly does the "left" discriminate against?


Assuming you guys mean Democrats (who are not left by any stretch of the imagination), they discriminate against Republicans. Didn't you see that Daily Show segment?
 
2012-10-29 10:32:39 AM  
Why can't we all just get along??
 
2012-10-29 10:34:10 AM  

runwiz: Many liberal Democrats are disappointed in Obama but this disappointment is totally their fault. They've have created an Obama of their own mind and imagination; an Obama that doesn't really exist. He was the vehicle of their hopes but only in their minds. In reality he never was an engine for real change. He is just Republican-lite; the leader of the other corporate party. Neither of the 2 major parties really represents the working man nor do they stand for fair distribution of the wealth of our nation. An Obama reelection will only at best be marginally better than a Romney victory and could be worse.


I think this one should have gotten more bites. It's got the buzz words. The falsehoods should provoke outrage and defense of Obama, yet it's not over the top.

But, nobody went for it, so you score no points.
 
2012-10-29 10:34:34 AM  

FuturePastNow: I gave up thinking Obama would push for any real social change years ago. He seems content to be a conservative president.


Ended the 15 month extended combat tours with little or no time off in between

Ended DADT in the US military

Got health care reform passed

Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which allows women to sue for equal pay AFTER the 180 days originally ruled by the SCOTUS.

Yeah, he's not wanting social change. He's just gottdammed Republican.
 
2012-10-29 10:36:32 AM  

PonceAlyosha: relcec: Just biatching about one of the two most important amenments being worth about a used diaper to both the left and right.

Who exactly does the "left" discriminate against?


Latinos within 500 miles of the border, whites and asians in terms of public education and employment, and gays in all but a few contexts. The cases I'm alluding to were for the most part decisions ratified by liberal supreme courts. Obama didn't change his ownwishy washy position until public opinion actually swung the other way.
 
2012-10-29 10:39:00 AM  
kpaxoid
I believe this is called tearing off your nose to spite your face?

It's called "admitting when a strategy isn't working"


crab66
Ideological purity is a fools errand.

IOW you stand for nothing.


Jiro Dreams Of McRibs
Obama is trying his best to avoid it.

Obama is trying his best to make you think he's trying his best to avoid it. Then when it happens in a month or two you will make up any number of excuses why his hand was forced and now we all have to stand together for the good of the country or some bullshiat.


gameshowhost
Strategy. A simple, 2x2 game theory matrix with the goal of minimizing loss. *That's* why I will vote for Obama.

The choices are NOT "Vote for Obama" vs "Sit around eating potato chips"!


Bad_Seed
His evidence for a left-wing resurgence is pretty thin. The anti-war movement failed, the Walker recall failed, occupy failed. Sure more people are interested in radical politics than have been over the last 20 years, but they are direction-less, disorganised and bereft of ideas. Ultimately, nobody, not even the left can conceive of a realistic alternative to a global capitalism dominated by finance

The anti-war and anti-Walker movements failed because they were channeled into electoral politics. Occupy failed because it didn't have another good direction after refusing to be channeled into electoral politics, which is still a step in the right direction. If Occupy could even be said to have 'failed' considering the number of projects and networks it's spawned.


Philip Francis Queeg
The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

93% of the economic recovery went to the 1%, and Obama is keeping cuts to social security and medicare on the table; next year they will almost certainly be cut as part of a deficit-reduction bargain.


HeartBurnKid
Is Obama going to change that reality? No, probably not. But he can shift the window a little to the left.

At best, voting for Obama could be slightly frictional- but not actually make progress in the other direction.

The more people like him get elected, the more the window shifts back to the left, and the more electable actual liberals become.

We've tried it your way. For the last six or seven years. It didn't work. It's time for a new strategy. Only Direct Action is left to us.
 
2012-10-29 10:41:28 AM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: FuturePastNow: I gave up thinking Obama would push for any real social change years ago. He seems content to be a conservative president.

Ended the 15 month extended combat tours with little or no time off in between

Ended DADT in the US military

Got health care reform passed

Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which allows women to sue for equal pay AFTER the 180 days originally ruled by the SCOTUS.

Yeah, he's not wanting social change. He's just gottdammed Republican.


And I think that's all pretty pathetic for someone who campaigned as a liberal.
 
2012-10-29 10:42:46 AM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

93% of the economic recovery went to the 1%, and Obama is keeping cuts to social security and medicare on the table; next year they will almost certainly be cut as part of a deficit-reduction bargain.


And Romney claims that Obama has been punishing success.
 
2012-10-29 10:44:55 AM  

FuturePastNow: Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: FuturePastNow: I gave up thinking Obama would push for any real social change years ago. He seems content to be a conservative president.

Ended the 15 month extended combat tours with little or no time off in between

Ended DADT in the US military

Got health care reform passed

Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which allows women to sue for equal pay AFTER the 180 days originally ruled by the SCOTUS.

Yeah, he's not wanting social change. He's just gottdammed Republican.

And I think that's all pretty pathetic for someone who campaigned as a liberal.


??? He campaigned as a moderate and he is. Mostly he's done exactly what he said he'd do.
 
2012-10-29 10:45:14 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

93% of the economic recovery went to the 1%, and Obama is keeping cuts to social security and medicare on the table; next year they will almost certainly be cut as part of a deficit-reduction bargain.

And Romney claims that Obama has been punishing success.


Yeah, CEOs just HATE Obama. They only made record salaries, bonuses and profits the past few years. That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable. Yeah, he sure did!
 
2012-10-29 10:46:49 AM  

machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.


Wouldn't someone have to say that first?
 
2012-10-29 10:46:56 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
The destruction of the social safety net, the further empowerment of the wealthy and corporations and the destruction of the middle class is significant social change.

93% of the economic recovery went to the 1%, and Obama is keeping cuts to social security and medicare on the table; next year they will almost certainly be cut as part of a deficit-reduction bargain.

And Romney claims that Obama has been punishing success.


Whatever Romney says is bullshiat, unless he's saying I am white and I should be President because I was resurrected from the dead and my daddy was rich and famous and ran for President!
 
2012-10-29 10:54:34 AM  

RanDomino:

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs
Obama is trying his best to avoid it.

Obama is trying his best to make you think he's trying his best to avoid it. Then when it happens in a month or two you will make up any number of excuses why his hand was forced and now we all have to stand together for the good of the country or some bullshiat.


Yep, Obama's the same thing. That's why you saw David Addington, Paul Wolfowitz and Ed Meese--all of whom belong in prison--asking questions at a Democratic primary debate.

Same thing.
 
2012-10-29 10:56:19 AM  

RanDomino: We've tried it your way. For the last six or seven years. It didn't work


You think 6 or 7 years is enough to undo 30 years of damage?
 
2012-10-29 10:56:35 AM  
Jiro Dreams Of McRibs
Ended the 15 month extended combat tours with little or no time off in between

Ended DADT in the US military


Oh, good. The military.

Got health care reform passed

I like how Democrats simultaneously say that this is both checked off the list and a stepping-stone to public option or single-payer.

If you're trying to convince progressives and radicals how great Obama is, try to talk about things we actually like.

Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act which allows women to sue for equal pay AFTER the 180 days originally ruled by the SCOTUS.

Truly revolutionary. This is definitely all the progress against patriarchy and misogyny we need in four years.


FuturePastNow
And I think that's all pretty pathetic for someone who campaigned as a liberal.

Liberal nothing. All the progressives thought he was the second coming. I know, I was part of those circles at the time. It was Obamamania.
 
2012-10-29 11:01:21 AM  

RanDomino: Truly revolutionary. This is definitely all the progress against patriarchy and misogyny we need in four years.


Your favourite food must be muffins made from broken glass.
 
2012-10-29 11:03:44 AM  

RanDomino: I like how Democrats simultaneously say that this is both checked off the list and a stepping-stone to public option or single-payer.


Because meeting in intermediary goal is never a cause for celebration, amirite?

Look, I get it. You're impatient. You want instant gratification. You want the whole world to change, and you want it NOW. The problem is, you're not going to get it. Slow and steady wins this race; after all, that's how the Republicans farked us over in the first place.

FFS, Reagan was a radical conservative in his day. He's to the left of every damn Republican in Congress and every damn Republican who ran for the Presidential nomination today. You think they pulled that off overnight?
 
2012-10-29 11:05:44 AM  
ghare
??? He campaigned as a moderate and he is.

Ahh you're right we're all just remembering wrong.


Jiro Dreams Of McRibs
Yep, Obama's the same thing. That's why you saw David Addington, Paul Wolfowitz and Ed Meese--all of whom belong in prison--asking questions at a Democratic primary debate.

Wow, what did I JUST SAY about how his strategy is to make liberals and progressives THINK that he's different?


HeartBurnKid
You think 6 or 7 years is enough to undo 30 years of damage?

Are you saying Clinton was part of the damage?
 
2012-10-29 11:10:38 AM  

RanDomino: Liberal nothing. All the progressives thought he was the second coming. I know, I was part of those circles at the time. It was Obamamania.


If you're looking for a progressive revolution, you're not going to get it from even the most progressive of pregressivey presidents. Not without supermajority PROGRESSIVES in the Senate and majority PROGRESSIVES in congress. Just look at the farking Dems who voted against Obamacare - and not because it wans't left-enough.

As a realist/pragmatist liberal, I understand that Obama is about as successful as a leftist could reasonably expect. To believe otherwise displays a surprising naïveté about how the American political system works.
 
2012-10-29 11:11:53 AM  

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
You think 6 or 7 years is enough to undo 30 years of damage?

Are you saying Clinton was part of the damage?


If Obama is lukewarm change, you can't then argue Clinton wasn't part of the damage.
 
2012-10-29 11:15:20 AM  
HeartBurnKid
Because meeting in intermediary goal is never a cause for celebration, amirite?

Look, I get it. You're impatient. You want instant gratification. You want the whole world to change, and you want it NOW. The problem is, you're not going to get it. Slow and steady wins this race; after all, that's how the Republicans farked us over in the first place.


This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

It's okay, I know the feeling. Someone calls out your bullshiat, so you go to the blogs and the Party websites looking for something to prove you right. And, lo and behold, they have these prepackaged arguments set up for you and ready to go. I used to do it. I understand. Then I realized that I was rejecting science and logic just to Be Right. So I stopped.

Since then I've lost 30 pounds, got an exciting and lucrative career in my field, and am dating three supermodels, and you can too! Just stop doing this!

FFS, Reagan was a radical conservative in his day. He's to the left of every damn Republican in Congress and every damn Republican who ran for the Presidential nomination today. You think they pulled that off overnight?

They pulled it off through a massive but steady saturation of propaganda. We don't have the money to just buy up radio stations and newspapers, so we need a different strategy- one which people like you are fond of crapping on.
 
2012-10-29 11:18:36 AM  

kpaxoid: I believe this is called tearing off your nose to spite your face?


No, it's called hastening the crisis of capitalism.

Orthodox Marxism holds that the inherent contradictions of capitalism will lead to its collapse. For example, if wages are kept at subsistence levels, who will buy what manufacturers make? That unregulated capitalism leads to crises was proven repeatedly during the Panics of 1877, 1893 and the Depression.

Therefore, it follows that a Romney victory would be a good thing for Communism, since by hastening the crisis of capitalism, the masses would be forced out of desperation to rise up against the capitalist system and smash it, bringing about the socialist millennium,.

The historic error of Marxist rhetoric on the results of the crisis of capitalism is that no communist state arose from such a crisis, unless it was aided by foreign conquest or the destruction of war. The Japanese and German responses to such a collapse were the installation of fascist, racist states. The Russian response was the May Revolution in 1917, and that was assisted by a nation thoroughly sick of participation in World War I. In Greece, Golden Dawn is on the rise, complete with quasi-swastika.

The criticism by America's center-left of this model is that such a crisis causes great human suffering. The crisis of capitalism necessarily brings about massive unemployment, plummeting wages, hunger and homelessness. The historical example is that such a crisis leads to the rise of the authoritarian Right.
 
2012-10-29 11:25:57 AM  
vygramul
If you're looking for a progressive revolution, you're not going to get it from even the most progressive of pregressivey presidents. Not without supermajority PROGRESSIVES in the Senate and majority PROGRESSIVES in congress.

i.telegraph.co.uk

So now it's gone from "Elect Democrats" to "Elect the right Democrats".

Do you have any idea how the Democratic Party works? The place to elect "better" Democrats without letting Teh Republicans win is the primaries. Remember what the Democrats told the progressives when they thought about primarying Obama? In every election, when there's a suggestion to primary a Blue Dog, the Party works hard to defeat it. Our local Blue Dog has never seen a primary challenge top 10%, because the Party is, first and foremost, a patronage system. No one in the Party apparatus wants to be on the losing side, because then they can say goodbye to future employment, leadership positions, or approval to run for office.

There is no reforming the Democratic Party from within. There were very large attempts to try it around 2006 and they were defeated.

Even aside from that, we elected the Democrats to majorities in both parts of Congress in 2006 on the belief that they would stop approving funding for the war, which was totally in their power. They did not. fark 'em.

As for Obama being the progressiviest president to ever progressive a progress, I agree. And yet his presidency is wholly insufficient. Which means that if we want real change it will never come through the electoral political system.

Just to be clear, I don't think I've ever said "don't vote". I don't care if you vote, because I don't think it matters. Vote, if you must- but if that's all you do, you're doing nothing.

If Obama is lukewarm change, you can't then argue Clinton wasn't part of the damage.

I know that; I want to know if HeartBurnKid is admitting it.
 
2012-10-29 11:27:17 AM  

PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?


A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.
 
2012-10-29 11:31:11 AM  

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
You think 6 or 7 years is enough to undo 30 years of damage?

Are you saying Clinton was part of the damage?


Of course he was. Glass-Steagall got repealed on his watch.
 
2012-10-29 11:32:02 AM  
Yamaneko2
Therefore, it follows that a Romney victory would be a good thing for Communism, since by hastening the crisis of capitalism, the masses would be forced out of desperation to rise up against the capitalist system and smash it, bringing about the socialist millennium,.

The historic error of Marxist rhetoric on the results of the crisis of capitalism is that no communist state arose from such a crisis, unless it was aided by foreign conquest or the destruction of war. The Japanese and German responses to such a collapse were the installation of fascist, racist states. The Russian response was the May Revolution in 1917, and that was assisted by a nation thoroughly sick of participation in World War I. In Greece, Golden Dawn is on the rise, complete with quasi-swastika.


This. The Marxists seem to think that the people just spontaneously rise up. It's bullshiat; what happens is that years of on-the-ground organizing and activism create a base which people decide to join when it's clear the old system is no longer working. That's why what Golden Dawn is doing is so effective and so dangerous- by being a protection and social services organization, they're building credibility. Meanwhile the Communists are content to sit back and think they're going to win by default (as you said) and the Anarchists seem to be stretched too thin by street-fighting without creating the social/economic base necessary to sustain it.
 
2012-10-29 11:33:10 AM  

machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?

A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.


That doesn't follow at all. Saying "not all politicians are the same" does not imply anything about their views on CEO compensation or reigning in corporate power. You're desperate.
 
2012-10-29 11:33:23 AM  

RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.


Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.
 
2012-10-29 11:37:30 AM  

HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.


YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?
 
2012-10-29 11:39:15 AM  

TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?


Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"
 
2012-10-29 11:46:44 AM  
HeartBurnKid
Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Anybody who prioritizes the Party over any humanist principles or goals is an apparatchik.

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

Your strategy leads to change never. There has been no progress in years (decades even, it you want to talk about the '70s- or the '60s or '30s, when change was driven by groups acting outside the political system, forcing the Democrats to offer compromises just to destroy our momentum), and the path you suggest is totally controlled by people that despise us and everything we stand for. This is a stupid plan, and your only goal is to channel outrage and desire for change into uncritically supporting The Party.
 
2012-10-29 11:47:01 AM  

RanDomino: The anti-war and anti-Walker movements failed because they were channeled into electoral politics. Occupy failed because it didn't have another good direction after refusing to be channeled into electoral politics, which is still a step in the right direction. If Occupy could even be said to have 'failed' considering the number of projects and networks it's spawned.


It's a step with no direction. You cannot do politics simply on the basis of what you are against. What have those projects and networks done over the past year? Or what are they planning to do in the coming year (do radicals in America keep a low profile during and election year to avoid frightening the horses?)
 
2012-10-29 11:49:53 AM  

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Anybody who prioritizes the Party over any humanist principles or goals is an apparatchik.

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

Your strategy leads to change never. There has been no progress in years (decades even, it you want to talk about the '70s- or the '60s or '30s, when change was driven by groups acting outside the political system, forcing the Democrats to offer compromises just to destroy our momentum), and the path you suggest is totally controlled by people that despise us and everything we stand for. This is a stupid plan, and your only goal is to channel outrage and desire for change into uncritically supporting The Party.


Tell us , what do you stand for, and how do you propose to bring it about.
 
2012-10-29 11:54:05 AM  

RanDomino: Your strategy leads to change never.


So does yours.
 
2012-10-29 12:01:16 PM  

RanDomino: Your strategy leads to change never. There has been no progress in years (decades even, it you want to talk about the '70s- or the '60s or '30s, when change was driven by groups acting outside the political system, forcing the Democrats to offer compromises just to destroy our momentum), and the path you suggest is totally controlled by people that despise us and everything we stand for. This is a stupid plan, and your only goal is to channel outrage and desire for change into uncritically supporting The Party.


Those groups had a coherent alternative vision, a programme to implement it, and even a working example. Say what you will about the Soviet Union, but its existence, and its economic success before the stagnation set in in the 1970s (yes, you read that correctly) scared the shiat out of western elites. That's what forced them to give up those compromises. While the decay and collapse of the USSR correlates pretty closely to retrenchment in the west.
 
2012-10-29 12:06:12 PM  

PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?

A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.

That doesn't follow at all. Saying "not all politicians are the same" does not imply anything about their views on CEO compensation or reigning in corporate power. You're desperate.


That was Mr. Jackson's response to the kid saying it... I shiat you not. So yes, people do indeed say that Obama is "holding CEOs accountable". So no, I am not desperate and I agree he didn't even refute the kids argument.
 
2012-10-29 12:10:19 PM  

machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?

A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.

That doesn't follow at all. Saying "not all politicians are the same" does not imply anything about their views on CEO compensation or reigning in corporate power. You're desperate.

That was Mr. Jackson's response to the kid saying it... I shiat you not. So yes, people do indeed say that Obama is "holding CEOs accountable". So no, I am not desperate and I agree he didn't even refute the kids argument.


Actually, I am thinking of a different ad. I just re-watched it. Trying to find the one where the person said that. My bad.
 
2012-10-29 12:10:53 PM  

RanDomino: vygramul
If you're looking for a progressive revolution, you're not going to get it from even the most progressive of pregressivey presidents. Not without supermajority PROGRESSIVES in the Senate and majority PROGRESSIVES in congress.

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 290x180]

So now it's gone from "Elect Democrats" to "Elect the right Democrats".


No, I didn't say that. Had congress been full of Bernie Sanders', Obama could have instituted far greater reforms and closed Gitmo. And Sanders isn't a Democrat. So I said nothing of the sort. I didn't move the goalposts at all and you should stop being a dick and try keeping up. If you paid attention, you would have seen that the implication is that even a progressive president would be hampered by the Democrats (not to mention Republicans).

Do you have any idea how the Democratic Party works? The place to elect "better" Democrats without letting Teh Republicans win is the primaries. Remember what the Democrats told the progressives when they thought about primarying Obama? In every election, when there's a suggestion to primary a Blue Dog, the Party works hard to defeat it. Our local Blue Dog has never seen a primary challenge top 10%, because the Party is, first and foremost, a patronage system. No one in the Party apparatus wants to be on the losing side, because then they can say goodbye to future employment, leadership positions, or approval to run for office.

My experience is that "patronage" is far too noble a word. It's more like high school with cliques and cool people and bullies and the bullied. "Patronage" implies far more loyalty.

There is no reforming the Democratic Party from within. There were very large attempts to try it around 2006 and they were defeated.

If the Tea Party can reform the GOP, then it's not impossible for the Democratic Party. The problem is largely because there are two types of people who join political parties: the narcissists and the true believers. Narcissists want to win office. True believers want to win ideological wars. The Narcissists tend to be the bullies who form cliques and shut down true believers out of fear the public won't vote for the narcissists when they run for office.

Even aside from that, we elected the Democrats to majorities in both parts of Congress in 2006 on the belief that they would stop approving funding for the war, which was totally in their power. They did not. fark 'em.

Partly, it's because things aren't that simple, and partly because office-holders are cowards. All of them want another term. They all vote in ways not to offend their constituents. What moderates don't understand is that it won't save them. Lincoln Chaffee (R-RI) didn't internalize that when he voted against the war and was rewarded with being kicked out of the Senate, and all those Democrats who voted against health care reform didn't learn that when they all got booted in the Republican sweeps of 2010.

As for Obama being the progressiviest president to ever progressive a progress, I agree. And yet his presidency is wholly insufficient. Which means that if we want real change it will never come through the electoral political system.

Only after a really long time, building the greens from the ground-up (all these third parties just keep going for hail-marys rather than slow build-up). But ultimately, I think you're right that you'll only get it through a revolution - and that sure as hell ain't happening with 30% of Americans looking like beachballs - fat, dumb, and perpetually unhappy.

Just to be clear, I don't think I've ever said "don't vote". I don't care if you vote, because I don't think it matters. Vote, if you must- but if that's all you do, you're doing nothing.

True. But there's also tons of difference between Obama and what Republicans promise. Maybe not on a galactic scale, but we live here on Earth, and that's enough difference for me.
 
2012-10-29 12:13:39 PM  

machoprogrammer: machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: PonceAlyosha: machoprogrammer: That is why I laugh ass off when people say Obama makes CEOs accountable.

Wouldn't someone have to say that first?

A few weeks ago, there was a Samual L Jackson video called "Wake the fark up" linked on Fark. In the video, he said that in response to a kid saying "They are all the same" and all the Fark Democrat fan club were saying how much of a hero Jackson was and how he was speaking the truth. So yes, people say it.

That doesn't follow at all. Saying "not all politicians are the same" does not imply anything about their views on CEO compensation or reigning in corporate power. You're desperate.

That was Mr. Jackson's response to the kid saying it... I shiat you not. So yes, people do indeed say that Obama is "holding CEOs accountable". So no, I am not desperate and I agree he didn't even refute the kids argument.

Actually, I am thinking of a different ad. I just re-watched it. Trying to find the one where the person said that. My bad.


It's okay, your general point stands.
 
2012-10-29 12:48:39 PM  

Jiro Dreams Of McRibs: And why? Not just because of profit but because of what used to be called the Wolfowitz doctrine--the US will not allow the rise of another super-power or world power. And if the neo-cons don't want Iran to reach the tipping point of world power, imagine how they feel about Communist China flexing over Asia.


The US will never do anything about China. They've been deemed Too Big to Flail.
 
2012-10-29 01:18:24 PM  
Bad_Seed
It's a step with no direction.

Ending delusions is progress.

You cannot do politics simply on the basis of what you are against. What have those projects and networks done over the past year? Or what are they planning to do in the coming year (do radicals in America keep a low profile during and election year to avoid frightening the horses?)

Not much if you're only concerned with sexy headline-grabbing.


Philip Francis Queeg
Tell us , what do you stand for, and how do you propose to bring it about.

Essentially a world of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" rather than "those who would eat must work".

Universal housing in the medium-range by using direct action to point out that there are plenty of empty houses and therefore it's absurd that people should be homeless. This segways into a larger critique of capitalism (Why were people kept homeless and houses kept empty? Because capitalism values profit over people.), such as by responding to the argument "Why should they get something for free when I have to pay taxes and a mortgage?" with "You shouldn't either."

Concurrently, real labor organization, with a Solidarity Unionism model rather than the quasi-feudal Business Unionism most people are used to, builds organization, solidarity, and economic power.

Eventually these types of operations can build an coalesce naturally, creating a true opposition-from-below to neoliberalism and social conservatism. The main thing that's lacking is the same that Democrat-apologists seem to value above all else- numbers. But organizing to build grassroots power can grow numbers by building credibility through (actual) intermediate victories; the Democrats can only beg and threaten. Furthermore, the Democrat-apologists plan is totally inactionable, except for voting every two or four years, whereas anyone can organize in their community or workplace and start carrying out direct action right now.

The Democrat-apologist plan has detail ONLY in the short-term: "Things won't get worse as fast!"

You can say that this is a utopian pipe dream, but the "Vote Democrat Or We're Doomed" plan has lead from failure to failure, and the only times it can claim success are still failures.


vygramul
If the Tea Party can reform the GOP

The Tea Party was never an outside group. The GOP establishment skillfully created it so they could claim moderation while actually driving the Overton Window further right. Unlike Occupy, which made fools of those Democrats who thought it could be their Tea Party, because Occupy was born of genuine frustration and opposition to the Democrats.

True. But there's also tons of difference between Obama and what Republicans promise. Maybe not on a galactic scale, but we live here on Earth, and that's enough difference for me.

Have fun voting for the Republicans from 20 years ago, and in 20 years voting for the Republicans of today.
 
2012-10-29 01:21:58 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
Tell us , what do you stand for, and how do you propose to bring it about.

Essentially a world of "from each according to ability, to each according to need" rather than "those who would eat must work".

Universal housing in the medium-range by using direct action to point out that there are plenty of empty houses and therefore it's absurd that people should be homeless. This segways into a larger critique of capitalism (Why were people kept homeless and houses kept empty? Because capitalism values profit over people.), such as by responding to the argument "Why should they get something for free when I have to pay taxes and a mortgage?" with "You shouldn't either."

Concurrently, real labor organization, with a Solidarity Unionism model rather than the quasi-feudal Business Unionism most people are used to, builds organization, solidarity, and economic power.

Eventually these types of operations can build an coalesce naturally, creating a true opposition-from-below to neoliberalism and social conservatism. The main thing that's lacking is the same that Democrat-apologists seem to value above all else- numbers. But organizing to build grassroots power can grow numbers by building credibility through (actual) intermediate victories; the Democrats can only beg and threaten. Furthermore, the Democrat-apologists plan is totally inactionable, except for voting every two or four years, whereas anyone can organize in their community or workplace and start carrying out direct action right now.

The Democrat-apologist plan has detail ONLY in the short-term: "Things won't get worse as fast!"

You can say that this is a utopian pipe dream, but the "Vote Democrat Or We're Doomed" plan has lead from failure to failure, and the only times it can claim success are still failures.


And how is this going to happen outside of the political process? Are you planning on seizing the empty homes?

You state that the Democratic model has not had enough success. What successes has your system had?
 
2012-10-29 01:23:35 PM  

RanDomino: Universal housing in the medium-range by using direct action to point out that there are plenty of empty houses and therefore it's absurd that people should be homeless. This segways into a larger critique of capitalism (Why were people kept homeless and houses kept empty? Because capitalism values profit over people.), such as by responding to the argument "Why should they get something for free when I have to pay taxes and a mortgage?" with "You shouldn't either."


l o farking l
 
2012-10-29 01:38:32 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
And how is this going to happen outside of the political process? Are you planning on seizing the empty homes?

Yes.
 
2012-10-29 01:40:12 PM  

mat catastrophe: GAT_00: Really? Because there's a reason I'm voting for Jill Stein.

Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?


...You I like.
 
2012-10-29 01:42:31 PM  
sprawl15
l o farking l

Tell me how this is less credible than your plan for "deep Constitutional meddling."
Who exactly will carry out this "deep Constitutional meddling"?
 
2012-10-29 01:43:42 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
And how is this going to happen outside of the political process? Are you planning on seizing the empty homes?

Yes.


I see. And what do you propose to do to anyone who attempts to stop you from seizing those homes or otherwise interfering in your agenda?

Tell us, how many homeless people are you housing at your place right now? Should it be seized for the common good?
 
2012-10-29 01:50:52 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
I see. And what do you propose to do to anyone who attempts to stop you from seizing those homes or otherwise interfering in your agenda?

A well-executed squat can be unnoticed for years. Good organization can create community support. Repetition and scale can make it economically foolish or even economically impossible for cities to send in the police.

Tell us, how many homeless people are you housing at your place right now?

Zero, because there are, as I said, plenty of empty houses. There is no need to cram 20 people in one building and leave 19 empty.

Should it be seized for the common good?

Just in case you didn't see it the first four times: EMPTY houses. Of which there are roughly six for each homeless person in the US.
 
2012-10-29 01:54:09 PM  

RanDomino: Who exactly will carry out this "deep Constitutional meddling"?


Nobody, our system is farked. That's why it's a requirement for a theoretical balanced system, rather than an actual expectation from politicians. You didn't get that? It was pretty clear.

RanDomino: Tell me how this is less credible than your plan for "deep Constitutional meddling."


Depends how you measure 'credible'. They both require magic powers or wishes to enact, so they aren't particularly credible that way. But at least mine isn't totally batshiat crazy. So there's that.
 
2012-10-29 01:56:00 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
I see. And what do you propose to do to anyone who attempts to stop you from seizing those homes or otherwise interfering in your agenda?

A well-executed squat can be unnoticed for years. Good organization can create community support. Repetition and scale can make it economically foolish or even economically impossible for cities to send in the police.

Tell us, how many homeless people are you housing at your place right now?

Zero, because there are, as I said, plenty of empty houses. There is no need to cram 20 people in one building and leave 19 empty.

Should it be seized for the common good?

Just in case you didn't see it the first four times: EMPTY houses. Of which there are roughly six for each homeless person in the US.


So other people's property should be seized but not yours?

What happened to "from each according to ability, to each according to need"? Surely if you have extra room it should be being used by those in need. Why are you hording resources like that? Wouldn't\ it be a great example for your cause if you spread your resources amongst those in need? I don't think you have full grasped what your Credo calls for. YOU must be willing to surrender YOUR possessions to those in need, not just the possessions of others.
 
2012-10-29 02:30:53 PM  

HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"


If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?
 
2012-10-29 02:48:39 PM  

RanDomino: Have fun voting for the Republicans from 20 years ago, and in 20 years voting for the Republicans of today.


Again - you're assuming that my activism is limited to voting.
 
2012-10-29 03:13:56 PM  
sprawl15
Nobody, our system is farked.

I am highly motivated by your stirring call to do nothing.

Depends how you measure 'credible'. They both require magic powers or wishes to enact, so they aren't particularly credible that way. But at least mine isn't totally batshiat crazy. So there's that.

Mine has a 99% chance of failure whereas yours, "Operation Don't Bother," has a 100% chance of failure.


Philip Francis Queeg
the possessions of others.

Empty houses are not the possessions of 'others'. They are unowned and available for homesteading.


vygramul
Again - you're assuming that my activism is limited to voting.

If not, then that's good. Don't work too hard encouraging people to vote, if it means less time doing things which are actually productive.
 
2012-10-29 03:17:47 PM  

RanDomino: I am highly motivated by your stirring call to do nothing.


You aren't too good with those pesky 'word' things, are you?
 
2012-10-29 03:52:26 PM  
sprawl15
You aren't too good with those pesky 'word' things, are you?

I must not be, because I didn't see what part of what you said is actually a plan.
 
2012-10-29 04:33:03 PM  

RanDomino: I must not be, because I didn't see what part of what you said is actually a plan.


Adorable.
 
2012-10-29 04:43:18 PM  

TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?


I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left, so we might actually have a serious conversation about these matters without getting shouted down by the right-wingers and their pet media.

Your turn. Show me yours.
 
2012-10-29 04:50:18 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
the possessions of others.

Empty houses are not the possessions of 'others'. They are unowned and available for homesteading.


That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?
 
2012-10-29 04:51:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
the possessions of others.

Empty houses are not the possessions of 'others'. They are unowned and available for homesteading.

That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?


It's not rape. It's homesteading.
 
2012-10-29 05:18:40 PM  

sprawl15: Philip Francis Queeg: RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
the possessions of others.

Empty houses are not the possessions of 'others'. They are unowned and available for homesteading.

That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?

It's not rape. It's homesteading.


If his wife's vagina isn't being used....
 
2012-10-29 06:15:57 PM  

HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?

I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left, so we might actually have a serious conversation about these matters without getting shouted down by the right-wingers and their pet media.

Your turn. Show me yours.


Oops! You forgot the timeline. Democrats always forget the timeline, except for the 'Not now' or 'Not this election it's too important to keep X out of office BOOGIEBOOGIEBOOGIE!!!'
 
2012-10-29 06:16:44 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?

There are lots of spare bedrooms. The empty house on the corner has a couple, the empty house down the street has four or five, there's an empty apartment building a few blocks away...
 
2012-10-29 06:20:04 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
That spare bedroom you have is unowned and available for homesteading, right?

There are lots of spare bedrooms. The empty house on the corner has a couple, the empty house down the street has four or five, there's an empty apartment building a few blocks away...


So basically what you are saying is that you have no intent to put your ideals into practice and that you intend to personally defend your material possessions as much as the capitalists you despise. What a shocking development from a radical revolutionary like you.
 
2012-10-29 06:20:05 PM  
sprawl15
Adorable.

Okay, let me fill in the blanks. I'm going to get together with my friends, co-workers, and other concerned community members about this plan to carry out "deep Constitutional meddling". Then we will go find the Constitution and meddle with it. Is that about right?


HeartBurnKid
I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left

We tried your plan. It didn't work.
 
2012-10-29 06:21:29 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
So basically what you are saying is that you have no intent to put your ideals into practice and that you intend to personally defend your material possessions as much as the capitalists you despise. What a shocking development from a radical revolutionary like you.

I'm not sure how cramming every homeless person in my house is going to get them into other houses which are empty.
 
2012-10-29 06:24:46 PM  

RanDomino: HeartBurnKid
Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Anybody who prioritizes the Party over any humanist principles or goals is an apparatchik.

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

Your strategy leads to change never. There has been no progress in years (decades even, it you want to talk about the '70s- or the '60s or '30s, when change was driven by groups acting outside the political system, forcing the Democrats to offer compromises just to destroy our momentum), and the path you suggest is totally controlled by people that despise us and everything we stand for. This is a stupid plan, and your only goal is to channel outrage and desire for change into uncritically supporting The Party.


Well, your way would never lead to change either, because the people you want to be in power would never get there.
 
2012-10-29 06:28:15 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
So basically what you are saying is that you have no intent to put your ideals into practice and that you intend to personally defend your material possessions as much as the capitalists you despise. What a shocking development from a radical revolutionary like you.

I'm not sure how cramming every homeless person in my house is going to get them into other houses which are empty.


"from each according to ability, to each according to need"

You have the ability to house people. There are people in need of housing. Do you believe yourself to be somehow exempt from the requirements of your creed? Surely someone as enlightened as you wouldn't see any problem with taking in a homeless person or two, right? Think of how much it would do to spread your message when your community sees you putting your plans into concrete action. You can show those bourgeois capitalist stooges how to get past the silly notion of private property.
 
2012-10-29 06:30:37 PM  
Philip Francis Queeg
You have the ability to house people. There are people in need of housing. Do you believe yourself to be somehow exempt from the requirements of your creed? Surely someone as enlightened as you wouldn't see any problem with taking in a homeless person or two, right? Think of how much it would do to spread your message when your community sees you putting your plans into concrete action. You can show those bourgeois capitalist stooges how to get past the silly notion of private property.

I see that we're done here.
 
2012-10-29 06:33:43 PM  

RanDomino: Philip Francis Queeg
You have the ability to house people. There are people in need of housing. Do you believe yourself to be somehow exempt from the requirements of your creed? Surely someone as enlightened as you wouldn't see any problem with taking in a homeless person or two, right? Think of how much it would do to spread your message when your community sees you putting your plans into concrete action. You can show those bourgeois capitalist stooges how to get past the silly notion of private property.

I see that we're done here.


Yes, I guess we are. You've turned out to be an armchair revolutionary full of nothing but hot air.
 
2012-10-29 06:40:06 PM  

RanDomino: I'm going to get together with my friends, co-workers, and other concerned community members about this plan to carry out "deep Constitutional meddling". Then we will go find the Constitution and meddle with it.


If you want to do that, go for it. I won't object.

It won't accomplish anything, but have at it.
 
2012-10-29 07:23:29 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

There were a number of Libertarian and Green party people on the ballot for me on the non-Big Election items. Of course, they were running for President/Senators as well.


But the odds are that the parties weren't pushing them. Hell, they're barely pushing their national tickets this year.

sprawl15:
The most telling part of the third party debate was the last question. If they were given a guarantee to pass on one constitutional amendment of their choice, what would they pick? None of them picked anything that would let third parties compete.

They're morons.


Not really, because the two party system is not Constitutionally mandated - it's just something that grew out of the original problems encountered when the nation was getting started. Federalists versus anti-Federalists, more or less. I doubt there's any language that could be constructed for an amendment that would change the two-party system without radically altering the actual system of government.

Empty Matchbook:

...You I like.


There's something I don't hear very often...
 
2012-10-29 07:27:16 PM  

mat catastrophe: I doubt there's any language that could be constructed for an amendment that would change the two-party system without radically altering the actual system of government.


I had the idea to outright ban political parties, but then I realized that it would fly in the face of "freedom of assembly."
 
2012-10-29 07:48:40 PM  

mat catastrophe: Not really, because the two party system is not Constitutionally mandated - it's just something that grew out of the original problems encountered when the nation was getting started. Federalists versus anti-Federalists, more or less. I doubt there's any language that could be constructed for an amendment that would change the two-party system without radically altering the actual system of government.


Which is kind of the point. They were given a wish that could do anything and automatically pass.

They didn't wish for something that would allow third parties to be competitive.
 
2012-10-29 08:13:12 PM  
...and so after being judged incapable of being reformed, in order to inculcate themselves and other group members from his heretical ideas that threatened the very foundation that provided so much of their tribalism based amour propre, the lone fark progressive that was truly just tired of supporting the entrenchment of this capitalistic and authoritative political system was attacked as unscrupulous charlatan and a wanton selfpromoter, and finally cast out of the flock as a heretic...
 
2012-10-29 08:41:36 PM  
relcec
...and so after being judged incapable of being reformed, in order to inculcate themselves and other group members from his heretical ideas that threatened the very foundation that provided so much of their tribalism based amour propre, the lone fark progressive that was truly just tired of supporting the entrenchment of this capitalistic and authoritative political system was attacked as unscrupulous charlatan and a wanton selfpromoter, and finally cast out of the flock as a heretic...

It's okay, arguments that bullshiat still set cognitive dissonance to work. It might only be a few months until we see their "I used to be an Obama supporter but this is too much" posts.
 
2012-10-29 11:21:31 PM  

TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?

I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left, so we might actually have a serious conversation about these matters without getting shouted down by the right-wingers and their pet media.

Your turn. Show me yours.

Oops! You forgot the timeline. Democrats always forget the timeline, except for the 'Not now' or 'Not this election it's too important to keep X out of office BOOGIEBOOGIEBOOGIE!!!'


So you got nothing. Of course.
 
2012-10-29 11:49:35 PM  

mat catastrophe: Satanic_Hamster: mat catastrophe: Because you want to encourage third parties to keep wasting their time, money, and effort on national elections they cannot win (and even if they did, would find themselves powerless to effect any change) instead of focusing on local elections first and building up a base of support in communities that would, in the short term, have a greater effect on your day-to-day life than who the President is and, in the long term, lead to the actual possibility of national gains?

There were a number of Libertarian and Green party people on the ballot for me on the non-Big Election items. Of course, they were running for President/Senators as well.

But the odds are that the parties weren't pushing them. Hell, they're barely pushing their national tickets this year.

sprawl15:
The most telling part of the third party debate was the last question. If they were given a guarantee to pass on one constitutional amendment of their choice, what would they pick? None of them picked anything that would let third parties compete.

They're morons.

Not really, because the two party system is not Constitutionally mandated - it's just something that grew out of the original problems encountered when the nation was getting started. Federalists versus anti-Federalists, more or less. I doubt there's any language that could be constructed for an amendment that would change the two-party system without radically altering the actual system of government.

Empty Matchbook:

...You I like.

There's something I don't hear very often...


Anyone who admits the truth that 3rd party candidates would be equally as powerless/corruptible as their mainstream counterparts wins points in my column.
 
2012-10-30 02:32:36 PM  

HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: TheOther: HeartBurnKid: RanDomino: This is not an 'intermediate goal'. It's a compromise. A substitution. A way for them to say, "Shut up and be happy you got anything at all." Many people have said that this is a "stepping stone" but not one has yet said HOW it will lead to universal healthcare. Not even a dumb plan- I haven't heard any plan at all! The consistency of the "stepping stone" excuse, and lack of depth, leads me to believe that it's just a Democratic Party talking point, which apparatchiks like yourself like to spew because it lets you sound right.

Ah. So not only are you impatient, you think anybody who takes a longer view is an "apparatchik".

Oh, to be young, dumb, and full of cum again.

YOU think you're taking the 'longer view'?!?

Sure am. I'm not the one going on about "But I want social change NOW! NOW NOW NOW!"

If not 'NOW, when? Let's see your timeline. What's the plan?

I told you my plan -- work the system from within to swing the window back to the left, so we might actually have a serious conversation about these matters without getting shouted down by the right-wingers and their pet media.

Your turn. Show me yours.

Oops! You forgot the timeline. Democrats always forget the timeline, except for the 'Not now' or 'Not this election it's too important to keep X out of office BOOGIEBOOGIEBOOGIE!!!'

So you got nothing. Of course.


What you got: 'Give me your vote on Tuesday and I'll gladly pay you back on Neverday.' Nuh-uh, nope, not gonna do it.

As for my 'plan'.

1) Watch the Democrats and Republicans finish looting and destroying the middle class, since the left will be a minority faction until that happens and I detest coup-d'etat/anarchist terror shenanigans.

2) When the left is the majority, amend the Constitution from a Federal Republic to a Representative Democracy.

3) Crush the right-wing oligarchy's counter-revolution in the subsequent civil war.*

Could democracy replace the federal republic without the suffering and death? Theoretically, yes, but I doubt the 1% and their minions are going to give up before killing millions of the 99%.

*Someone up-thread commented that America under stress is more likely to go right-wing rather than left and I agree that is a possibility. If that happens, it will be somebody else's problem, since I'll be one of the first to go into the ovens.
 
Displayed 207 of 207 comments

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