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.

(UPI)   Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says that he will refuse to work with Obama during his second term until he moves to the political center   ( upi.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, President Obama, Mitch McConnell, Party leaders of the United States Senate, human beings, political center, Kentucky Republican, John Ensign  
•       •       •

4847 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Nov 2012 at 4:11 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-11-07 10:02:18 PM  

naughtyrev: So he wants Obama to go to the left, then.

 
2012-11-07 10:05:25 PM  
Hey, we put up with 8 years of Bush. I think you'll get over it.

Remember, youre either with us or against us!

/ if you dont like living in a democracy GTFO!
// America! love it or shove it!
 
2012-11-07 10:17:13 PM  

InmanRoshi: Muta: InmanRoshi: The Bush tax cuts completely expire without Obama having to lift a finger, much less meet McConnell halfway.

A trillion will be be cut from the budget -- including defense -- unless everyone plays nice. That was the 98% of what Boner wanted.

A trillion over 10 years, half of that is military spending, to be exact.

The worst possible scenerio for Democrats that both sides have to eat shiat on a deal. The difference is, Democrats are well familiar with the taste after years and years of horrible, horrible, horrible negotations on their part. The GOP can't just hold the country hostage with a gun to it's head and get everything they want this time.


sequestration: a good start especially cutting defense, which just might introduce a more rational defense posture in the world
 
2012-11-07 10:24:45 PM  
img641.imageshack.us
A lot of people don't know this, but Mitch was a pilot during the war, oh yes
 
2012-11-07 10:34:43 PM  

KarmicDisaster: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: You thought I was serious? You can't be this dense.

So answer my question: What real-world "excessive demands" on the part of the Democrats are you making this absurd example in comparison to? What is so heinous and offensive that total intransigence at every level and refusal even to discuss it is warranted? More to the point, how is it that every bill and proposal the Democrats have offered is somehow this offensive?

The excessive demands of the left started with the individual mandate. You know, the idea championed by their own party 15 years ago as the free market alternative to socialized medicine, and put into practice on a state level by the same guy they just nominated to run for president.

If you look at the history of the individual mandate, it was placed in there starting with Romneycare at the absolute insistence of a right wing think tank responding to insurance company worries that people would only buy insurance once they got sick and "get something for free" otherwise. It was not something pioneered by the left.


[thatsthejoke.jpg]
 
2012-11-07 11:02:37 PM  
So, he admits his intention to not do his job. Furthermore, he will impede the function of the US government.

I believe that's treason.

Shoot him dead right now. Will still do that for treason, right?
 
2012-11-07 11:13:07 PM  
So he wants a more left wing Obama?
 
2012-11-07 11:20:22 PM  
Have there been any credible rumors that Mitch might not be reelected minority leader?
 
2012-11-07 11:20:39 PM  

Heraclitus: Hey, we put up with 8 years of Bush. I think you'll get over it.

Remember, youre either with us or against us!

/ if you dont like living in a democracy GTFO!
// America! love it or shove it!


Also, IIRC, the far-left doomsayers were predicting pretty much the same crap (FEMA re-education camps, midnight raids by jackbooted thugs, roundups of suspected non-patriots) when Bush was in office. None of it happened. Why the right expects the same thing to happen is beyond me. Unless they're the ones who are going to personally do it, and then I'll call the cops because there's still all these laws we have.

But if you want it to happen, bring it.
 
2012-11-07 11:30:22 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: Have there been any credible rumors that Mitch might not be reelected minority leader?


There's rumors floating about Kentucky that Ashley Judd might be run against him.
 
2012-11-07 11:32:25 PM  

Girion47: StoneColdAtheist: Have there been any credible rumors that Mitch might not be reelected minority leader?

There's rumors floating about Kentucky that Ashley Judd might be run against him.


Would that be an improvement?
 
2012-11-07 11:36:43 PM  

The Homer Tax: SouthParkCon: The Homer Tax: qorkfiend: SouthParkCon: how about a Pro-Choice bill is put forth in Congress that gives a women the right to choose to have an abortion, but their is a main provision that you have to let a living male relative decide where the abortion will take place.

You actually think this is a valid argument, don't you?

Why in the name of god would there be any reason to have anyone else decide anything about an adult undergoing a legal medical procedure, much less a "male relative" (do you have any idea how Sharia-like that sounds?) being able to control the entire process?

It's hilarious because I bet you're one of the ones who scream loudly about the "government getting between you and your doctor", but you have no problem suggesting that other people should be forced to have their medical decisions made for them.

He's also talking about a law "giving women the right to have an abortion."

A right they already have had, as affirmed by SCOTUS for ~40 years.

He's also pretending like Obama isn't willing to compromise and is the Reason a middle ground can't be met.

But all you really need to know is that he uses the phrase "Progressives" seriously.

Well then you tell me where your ideology stands. I consider myself a Conservative. Should I go to Whidbey's level and call you Libtard's or Lefty's or something similar? You tell me and I'll use it from now on.

I'm a left-leaning independent, and that has nothing to do with your silly use of the term "Progressive."

But really the words you use aren't your problem, it's your desire to group an label everyone and then argue against your idea of what those people think rather than what someone is actually saying.

You mean the way I am labeled a racist, homophobic, hate-monger if I disagree with Obama or the Left's policy's? I may put a different viewpoint out there but instead of discussion I get "DERP".

That and your whining about this site and the people that post on here. If you spent half the amount of energy you do on whining instead on quality political discourse, we could be having some good discussions right now.

Like I said before, I hang out here for the lulz. I gave up any kind of political discourse here in 2010. The comments above prove my point, I am attacked based on a false assumption of where I stand on the issues and time and time again the response to any post is "DERP or your an evil conservative". Feel free to go back through my previous posts in 2010 and you can see where I stand. I accept and know that's what Fark has become, it is what it is. I also like the Geek tab.

 
2012-11-07 11:37:20 PM  

The Homer Tax: KarmicDisaster: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: You thought I was serious? You can't be this dense.

So answer my question: What real-world "excessive demands" on the part of the Democrats are you making this absurd example in comparison to? What is so heinous and offensive that total intransigence at every level and refusal even to discuss it is warranted? More to the point, how is it that every bill and proposal the Democrats have offered is somehow this offensive?

The excessive demands of the left started with the individual mandate. You know, the idea championed by their own party 15 years ago as the free market alternative to socialized medicine, and put into practice on a state level by the same guy they just nominated to run for president.

If you look at the history of the individual mandate, it was placed in there starting with Romneycare at the absolute insistence of a right wing think tank responding to insurance company worries that people would only buy insurance once they got sick and "get something for free" otherwise. It was not something pioneered by the left.

[thatsthejoke.jpg]


Ah. Well, sometimes I have to have it explained to me.
 
2012-11-07 11:41:34 PM  

Kuroshin: Didja happen to read the topic? If Obama moves toward the center, he'd be moving left. You also missed the "/oblig" slashie at the bottom as well.


Um,. you are aware that Republicans consider Obama to be extremely liberal, and not center-right, and that by "moving to the center" they would want him to shift right? Which is bullshiat.

whidbey, just retire. You've been embarrassing yourself for a while now. You've been pounded into the dirt in every thread for the past week. Just hang it up. You're tired.

Maybe in your own head. You're welcome to put me on ignore if you can't handle your point of view being challenged. At any rate, we're done here if all you've got are personal attacks.
 
2012-11-07 11:42:55 PM  
Oh Mitch Mitch Mitch......... 
i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-07 11:43:13 PM  

qorkfiend: SouthParkCon: "Let's enact this and tie it up in noted Left leaning courts"

For the record, it's absurd statements like this that earn you the "derp" responses.


So 9th Circuit isn't stocked full of Liberal-leaning judges? 

Please tell me again how I am incorrect in that viewpoint.
 
2012-11-07 11:43:24 PM  

SouthParkCon: Like I said before, I hang out here for the lulz. I gave up any kind of political discourse here in 2010. The comments above prove my point, I am attacked based on a false assumption of where I stand on the issues and time and time again the response to any post is "DERP or your an evil conservative". Feel free to go back through my previous posts in 2010 and you can see where I stand. I accept and know that's what Fark has become, it is what it is. I also like the Geek tab.


So you're not going to answer the question that was put to you fairly to justify your seemingly-absurd statements? Gee, I wonder why people call "derp" on you. Maybe it's because you're full of shiat and you know it.

And get the fark down from that cross, you ass.
 
2012-11-07 11:44:32 PM  

whidbey: SouthParkCon: SouthParkCon: whidbey: SouthParkCon: DERP

whidbey: (I saved you the hassle of doing it)

Dude, you're a troll.

Want to shed that negative label?

Too bad.


Dude, I fully admit to trolling. Again, I'm here for the lulz.
 
2012-11-07 11:46:06 PM  

SouthParkCon: Dude, I fully admit to trolling. Again, I'm here for the lulz.


For real?
 
2012-11-07 11:56:51 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: Girion47: StoneColdAtheist: Have there been any credible rumors that Mitch might not be reelected minority leader?

There's rumors floating about Kentucky that Ashley Judd might be run against him.

Would that be an improvement?


a bucket of turds would be an improvement over Mitch
 
2012-11-07 11:58:28 PM  

whidbey: SouthParkCon: Dude, I fully admit to trolling. Again, I'm here for the lulz.

For real?


*clicks profile*

yep.

*favorited!*
 
2012-11-07 11:59:58 PM  

The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: You thought I was serious? You can't be this dense.

So answer my question: What real-world "excessive demands" on the part of the Democrats are you making this absurd example in comparison to? What is so heinous and offensive that total intransigence at every level and refusal even to discuss it is warranted? More to the point, how is it that every bill and proposal the Democrats have offered is somehow this offensive?

The excessive demands of the left started with the individual mandate. You know, the idea championed by their own party 15 years ago as the free market alternative to socialized medicine, and put into practice on a state level by the same guy they just nominated to run for president.

Well, yes, but I want SPC's answer. I want to know what he's driving at.

I'd love to hear his answer too, but I'm afraid you're not going to get one...


Sorry I had to go oppress some minorities while out to dinner with the wife and kids :).

So let's go with Obama's health care plan for starters. A mandate with a penalty, and was found by the SCOTUS to be a Tax, contrary to what was peddled to the public by Obama himself. Now I would classify that as the "5%" that made the rest of it unacceptable to swallow. Obama would not relent, and it passed based on purely party lines, and then 2010 happened.

I see the same fight coming up about immigration. Do I think that we should kick out everyone here illegally? No, that wouldn't be a realistic solution. Do I think we need to grant blanket amnesty? No, however I will more than likely be called a racist hate-monger because of that. Is there somewhere in the middle to meet? Sure. The problem is that much like what happened to Reagan, the President and those on the Left will push blanket Amnesty with some sort of additional security measure on the border, only to either deny funding to the security portion or something similar. I'll also be the first in line to put Bush Jr. on the spot for his handling of the border.
 
2012-11-08 12:00:51 AM  

A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: Like I said before, I hang out here for the lulz. I gave up any kind of political discourse here in 2010. The comments above prove my point, I am attacked based on a false assumption of where I stand on the issues and time and time again the response to any post is "DERP or your an evil conservative". Feel free to go back through my previous posts in 2010 and you can see where I stand. I accept and know that's what Fark has become, it is what it is. I also like the Geek tab.

So you're not going to answer the question that was put to you fairly to justify your seemingly-absurd statements? Gee, I wonder why people call "derp" on you. Maybe it's because you're full of shiat and you know it.

And get the fark down from that cross, you ass.


See above, I can only type so fast and no longer live in front of my computer 24/7.
 
2012-11-08 12:01:29 AM  
Latonia, the Wildcats, AND Pitino can power suck it.
 
2012-11-08 12:03:52 AM  

Kuroshin: [www.politicalcompass.org image 480x400]

/oblig


Looking at that almost makes me want to turn it into a 3d model and over lay it on known star charts.
 
2012-11-08 12:07:18 AM  

KarmicDisaster: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: You thought I was serious? You can't be this dense.

So answer my question: What real-world "excessive demands" on the part of the Democrats are you making this absurd example in comparison to? What is so heinous and offensive that total intransigence at every level and refusal even to discuss it is warranted? More to the point, how is it that every bill and proposal the Democrats have offered is somehow this offensive?

The excessive demands of the left started with the individual mandate. You know, the idea championed by their own party 15 years ago as the free market alternative to socialized medicine, and put into practice on a state level by the same guy they just nominated to run for president.

If you look at the history of the individual mandate, it was placed in there starting with Romneycare at the absolute insistence of a right wing think tank responding to insurance company worries that people would only buy insurance once they got sick and "get something for free" otherwise. It was not something pioneered by the left.


I fully agree that the individual mandate is something not pioneered by the Left, however this comes down to States rights. The Federal Government demanding all citizens to comply with the mandate, a Progressive (or whateverthefark you want me to call it) ideal, is far different that each states citizens deciding to comply with a mandate. In my opinion that is one of the principle differences between myself and a Progressive/Liberal/Whatever. If a state votes on same sex marriage, then that is that states right and it's citizens will decide. If a state wants legalized pot, then again it is up to those citizens. As far as I'm concerned the Federal Government's role should be far more limited than it has been over the last 50 years.
 
2012-11-08 12:10:21 AM  

whidbey: whidbey: SouthParkCon: Dude, I fully admit to trolling. Again, I'm here for the lulz.

For real?

*clicks profile*

yep.

*favorited!*


I have said time and time again that I like to Troll, I throw out some of my real views every so often but it's all just DERP to you and a vast majority of Farkers so I just have fun. Oh and I can't tell you how many time I get called an Alt or I have other Alts, or maybe I am an Alt of an Alt of someone else's Alt or Tatsuma.
 
2012-11-08 12:14:42 AM  

SouthParkCon: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: You thought I was serious? You can't be this dense.

So answer my question: What real-world "excessive demands" on the part of the Democrats are you making this absurd example in comparison to? What is so heinous and offensive that total intransigence at every level and refusal even to discuss it is warranted? More to the point, how is it that every bill and proposal the Democrats have offered is somehow this offensive?

The excessive demands of the left started with the individual mandate. You know, the idea championed by their own party 15 years ago as the free market alternative to socialized medicine, and put into practice on a state level by the same guy they just nominated to run for president.

Well, yes, but I want SPC's answer. I want to know what he's driving at.

I'd love to hear his answer too, but I'm afraid you're not going to get one...

Sorry I had to go oppress some minorities while out to dinner with the wife and kids :).

So let's go with Obama's health care plan for starters. A mandate with a penalty, and was found by the SCOTUS to be a Tax, contrary to what was peddled to the public by Obama himself. Now I would classify that as the "5%" that made the rest of it unacceptable to swallow. Obama would not relent, and it passed based on purely party lines, and then 2010 happened.

I see the same fight coming up about immigration. Do I think that we should kick out everyone here illegally? No, that wouldn't be a realistic solution. Do I think we need to grant blanket amnesty? No, however I will more than likely be called a racist hate-monger because of that. Is there somewhere in the middle to meet? Sure. The problem is that much like what happened to Reagan, the President and those on the Left will push blanket Amnesty with some sort of additional security measure on the border, only to either deny funding to the security portion or something similar. I'll also be the fi ...


Well, then you're not ENTIRELY intellectually dishonest about your politics. We're making progress here, people.
 
2012-11-08 12:22:14 AM  
What a giant load of crap. The fact that my state would elect this douche AND Rand Paul to the Senate doesn't give me much hope.

Alright, Mitch. If you want Obama to meet you half way, you're going to have to take a few steps toward the center yourself.

None of this "our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" crap. That plan went just as expected, right? None of this "cuts across the board, but no tax increases whatsoever" policy either.

Put your money where your mouth is and learn to compromise. Until then, you sound like a butthurt baby who can't accept defeat.

Funny how if Obama would have lost, it would've been a mandate from the people- but because Obama won? No no no, surely there's no mandate. America was just fine with all that gridlock, and it must mean we want more!

Staring strong economic data and the will of the American people directly in the face, you continue to be a hypocritical, delusional tool, representing everything wrong with the House and Senate.

Fark yourself, Mitch.
 
2012-11-08 12:44:37 AM  
He is now utterly committed to making Obama a two-term President. He does not know pity, he does not know fear, he does not sleep and be absolutely will not stop until he sees Obama's Presidency utterly ended at the end of his second term.

Two terms and no more, Obama! A line has been drawn in the sand! YOU SHALL NOT PASS!
 
2012-11-08 12:45:08 AM  
i262.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-08 12:45:13 AM  

SouthParkCon: KarmicDisaster: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: You thought I was serious? You can't be this dense.

So answer my question: What real-world "excessive demands" on the part of the Democrats are you making this absurd example in comparison to? What is so heinous and offensive that total intransigence at every level and refusal even to discuss it is warranted? More to the point, how is it that every bill and proposal the Democrats have offered is somehow this offensive?

The excessive demands of the left started with the individual mandate. You know, the idea championed by their own party 15 years ago as the free market alternative to socialized medicine, and put into practice on a state level by the same guy they just nominated to run for president.

If you look at the history of the individual mandate, it was placed in there starting with Romneycare at the absolute insistence of a right wing think tank responding to insurance company worries that people would only buy insurance once they got sick and "get something for free" otherwise. It was not something pioneered by the left.

I fully agree that the individual mandate is something not pioneered by the Left, however this comes down to States rights. The Federal Government demanding all citizens to comply with the mandate, a Progressive (or whateverthefark you want me to call it) ideal, is far different that each states citizens deciding to comply with a mandate. In my opinion that is one of the principle differences between myself and a Progressive/Liberal/Whatever. If a state votes on same sex marriage, then that is that states right and it's citizens will decide. If a state wants legalized pot, then again it is up to those citizens. As far as I'm concerned the Federal Government's role should be far more limited than it has been over the last 50 years.


When the idea of the obviously mandate was first developed by Conservatives, it was intended to be applied at the federal level.

The mandate was the compromise.
 
2012-11-08 12:51:48 AM  

SouthParkCon: he Left is famous for pushing a narrative of "We met 99% of what they want and they aren't budging on 1%".


Boehner: "I do. When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."

But no, it's a lie. The Republicans aren't petulant whining children always getting "the bigger half" and upset they didn't get more. I mean I get it, all SORTS of things have changed since the 1950s, 20s, or whenever the particular wingnut thinks America was "best." (Usually when they were children, oddly enough) but those things changed a long time ago. Conservative appeal to tradition and not changing includes accepting the new reality; gay people are people, latinos can't be deported just for being poor and brown, and suppressing the entirely constitutional vote of people who don't vote your way is still wrong.

I mean if you actually gave a DAMN about illegal immigrants or the made-up voter fraud you can't stop screeching about it's not that difficult. A national ID card, easier legal immigration, and heavy prosecution of illegal hiring practices would work wonders but the GOP hates the idea. Republicans LOVE illegal immigration, they just really, really want and NEED those immigrants to be "unpersons" who provide cheap labor and get removed if they become "uppity."
 
2012-11-08 12:52:17 AM  

Mr_Fabulous: Mutherfarkers lost the election 332 - 209, still don't have the Senate, and they're STILL acting like they set the agenda.

Fark them. Elections have consequences. Period.


Today on NPR: after Republicans were rejected nearly everywhere in the election, let's have on a bunch of Republican strategists on for their take on what happened..

/facepalm
 
2012-11-08 12:58:14 AM  

The Homer Tax: SouthParkCon: KarmicDisaster: The Homer Tax: A Dark Evil Omen: SouthParkCon: You thought I was serious? You can't be this dense.

So answer my question: What real-world "excessive demands" on the part of the Democrats are you making this absurd example in comparison to? What is so heinous and offensive that total intransigence at every level and refusal even to discuss it is warranted? More to the point, how is it that every bill and proposal the Democrats have offered is somehow this offensive?

The excessive demands of the left started with the individual mandate. You know, the idea championed by their own party 15 years ago as the free market alternative to socialized medicine, and put into practice on a state level by the same guy they just nominated to run for president.

If you look at the history of the individual mandate, it was placed in there starting with Romneycare at the absolute insistence of a right wing think tank responding to insurance company worries that people would only buy insurance once they got sick and "get something for free" otherwise. It was not something pioneered by the left.

I fully agree that the individual mandate is something not pioneered by the Left, however this comes down to States rights. The Federal Government demanding all citizens to comply with the mandate, a Progressive (or whateverthefark you want me to call it) ideal, is far different that each states citizens deciding to comply with a mandate. In my opinion that is one of the principle differences between myself and a Progressive/Liberal/Whatever. If a state votes on same sex marriage, then that is that states right and it's citizens will decide. If a state wants legalized pot, then again it is up to those citizens. As far as I'm concerned the Federal Government's role should be far more limited than it has been over the last 50 years.

When the idea of the obviously mandate was first developed by Conservatives, it was intended to be applied at the federal level.

Th ...


I know Romney had previously advocated for a federal mandate, something that really shows that he wasn't as far right as he was depicted. Did he flip-flop? Of course he did when he threw his hat in the ring for POTUS, knowing full well that the base and Independents wouldn't go for that. Do I think if he became POTUS that he would have gone back to a more moderate position, sure do and it would have pissed off the base, but he would have done it anyway. That is really the fundamental difference between Romney and Obama. Bush Jr. did the same thing, however he was farther to the Right than Romney is. That's why the outcome of the election was really startling to a lot of Conservatives, even though DURING the election we would never say it, after Romney would have throw a flower on top of a turd and we would have taken a bite, Obama just hands out the turd.
 
2012-11-08 01:01:18 AM  

TheBigJerk: SouthParkCon: he Left is famous for pushing a narrative of "We met 99% of what they want and they aren't budging on 1%".

Boehner: "I do. When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."

But no, it's a lie. The Republicans aren't petulant whining children always getting "the bigger half" and upset they didn't get more. I mean I get it, all SORTS of things have changed since the 1950s, 20s, or whenever the particular wingnut thinks America was "best." (Usually when they were children, oddly enough) but those things changed a long time ago. Conservative appeal to tradition and not changing includes accepting the new reality; gay people are people, latinos can't be deported just for being poor and brown, and suppressing the entirely constitutional vote of people who don't vote your way is still wrong.

I mean if you actually gave a DAMN about illegal immigrants or the made-up voter fraud you can't stop screeching about it's not that difficult. A national ID card, easier legal immigration, and heavy prosecution of illegal hiring practices would work wonders but the GOP hates the idea. Republicans LOVE illegal immigration, they just really, really want and NEED those immigrants to be "unpersons" who provide cheap labor and get removed if they become "uppity."


Well summarized.
 
2012-11-08 01:04:11 AM  

Alphax: Mr_Fabulous: Mutherfarkers lost the election 332 - 209, still don't have the Senate, and they're STILL acting like they set the agenda.

Fark them. Elections have consequences. Period.

Today on NPR: after Republicans were rejected nearly everywhere in the election, let's have on a bunch of Republican strategists on for their take on what happened..

/facepalm


That is part of the problem, just like last time.

We the American voters should have sent the message that the Republican Party ideology is outdated, meanspirited and busted, instead half the country gave them their support and and managed to pack the Senate and the House.

But it's all in the name of trying to be "fair" where we get farked.
 
2012-11-08 01:25:53 AM  
In January of 2009, a newly sworn in president Obama built a large and splendid house in the center, with its front door facing to the right and lots of spare bedrooms for any republican who might want to visit.

Then he put a sign outside, "FREE CABLE"
And then "PETS ALLOWED"
And another "COOKOUT TONIGHT"
Then another "FREE RENT"

Yet no one came.

This president has literally turned himself inside out reaching across the aisle to republicans, and every single time he's had that hand slapped away by the petulant, obstinate, immature children who occupy those seats.

fark THEM.
 
2012-11-08 01:32:02 AM  

TheBigJerk: SouthParkCon: he Left is famous for pushing a narrative of "We met 99% of what they want and they aren't budging on 1%".

Boehner: "I do. When you look at this final agreement that we came to with the white House, I got 98 percent of what I wanted. I'm pretty happy."

But no, it's a lie. The Republicans aren't petulant whining children always getting "the bigger half" and upset they didn't get more. I mean I get it, all SORTS of things have changed since the 1950s, 20s, or whenever the particular wingnut thinks America was "best." (Usually when they were children, oddly enough) but those things changed a long time ago. Conservative appeal to tradition and not changing includes accepting the new reality; gay people are people, latinos can't be deported just for being poor and brown, and suppressing the entirely constitutional vote of people who don't vote your way is still wrong.

I mean if you actually gave a DAMN about illegal immigrants or the made-up voter fraud you can't stop screeching about it's not that difficult. A national ID card, easier legal immigration, and heavy prosecution of illegal hiring practices would work wonders but the GOP hates the idea. Republicans LOVE illegal immigration, they just really, really want and NEED those immigrants to be "unpersons" who provide cheap labor and get removed if they become "uppity."


I agree with the two points in bold.

"gay people are people"

People are people, and you I should live together in harmony. While there are the Right wing kooks who disagree, the vast majority of Conservatives would agree. When the gay marriage debate shifted to a debate on civil rights, I saw that as a cheap ploy by the Left to equate people getting married to the Civil Rights movement. The fact is that no major players on the Right are saying that if your gay you have to go to a certain school, use a separate bathroom or any of the other Jim Crow laws that segregated our society for so long. It's ridiculous to try and link the two.

latinos can't be deported just for being poor and brown, and suppressing the entirely constitutional vote of people who don't vote your way is still wrong. 

Nobody has advocated the removal of anybody from this country based on the color of their skin or economic status. The removal is based on how they arrived here, be it by their mama's belly on US soil or if they hopped the fence and came on in. The right of those individuals to vote is based on the first situation and should not be based on the second. The issue I have is the Left is changing the narrative from a persons legal right to vote, to a persons ability to vote. The Left want to remove any barrier for an individual to vote based purely on their showing up at a polling station, contrary to the constitution requiring that person to be a citizen, thus ensuring their dominance politically for the foreseeable future. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would see that as ok. The term "voter suppression" is the new catch phrase by the left to mask the real intent which is vote gerrymandering.
 
2012-11-08 01:58:55 AM  

SouthParkCon: qorkfiend: SouthParkCon: "Let's enact this and tie it up in noted Left leaning courts"

For the record, it's absurd statements like this that earn you the "derp" responses.

So 9th Circuit isn't stocked full of Liberal-leaning judges? 

Please tell me again how I am incorrect in that viewpoint.


One court does not qualify as "left-leaning courts". You also supply no supporting documentation. The Wikipedia page? Really? Here I thought you had 10 pages ready to go; surely you can provide even cursory support for your assertions.
 
2012-11-08 02:39:46 AM  
About time you fixed the headline. Also, dumbass subby. Dumb, dumb.
 
2012-11-08 03:20:19 AM  
Reid can defang McConnell in one stroke. Nuke the filibuster.
 
2012-11-08 06:53:08 AM  

SouthParkCon: SouthParkCon: whidbey: SouthParkCon: DERP

whidbey: (I saved you the hassle of doing it)


I actually didn't have you favorited as a douchebag.

\FTFM
 
2012-11-08 06:59:06 AM  

SouthParkCon: People are people, and you I should live together in harmony. While there are the Right wing kooks who disagree, the vast majority of Conservatives would agree. When the gay marriage debate shifted to a debate on civil rights, I saw that as a cheap ploy by the Left to equate people getting married to the Civil Rights movement. The fact is that no major players on the Right are saying that if your gay you have to go to a certain school, use a separate bathroom or any of the other Jim Crow laws that segregated our society for so long. It's ridiculous to try and link the two.


You don't see the ability to publicly declare your love and commitment to the most important person in your life as a civil right? Maybe that's because you haven't been told that your relationship with your significant other is completely illegitimate and undeserving or unworthy of recognition by the world ever before. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. What about, say, the word of the Supreme Court? I mean, it's not like they ever unanimously said that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Oh, wait, they already did! Never mind.
 
2012-11-08 08:59:03 AM  
Can we just begin the bombing of the Confederate states, already? It's called "pre-emptive" strikes, and we know what these Tea-tarded states are going to do for the next four years, right? If they want to fight the federal government, the president should give it to them with both barrels. As a Kentuckian, I for one look forward to my new opportunities in exile.
 
2012-11-08 09:44:10 AM  

qorkfiend: SouthParkCon: qorkfiend: SouthParkCon: "Let's enact this and tie it up in noted Left leaning courts"

For the record, it's absurd statements like this that earn you the "derp" responses.

So 9th Circuit isn't stocked full of Liberal-leaning judges? 

Please tell me again how I am incorrect in that viewpoint.

One court does not qualify as "left-leaning courts". You also supply no supporting documentation. The Wikipedia page? Really? Here I thought you had 10 pages ready to go; surely you can provide even cursory support for your assertions.


You obviously didn't bother to read what was actually on the Wikipedia page and who appointed what judges.
 
2012-11-08 09:51:59 AM  

Serious Black: SouthParkCon: People are people, and you I should live together in harmony. While there are the Right wing kooks who disagree, the vast majority of Conservatives would agree. When the gay marriage debate shifted to a debate on civil rights, I saw that as a cheap ploy by the Left to equate people getting married to the Civil Rights movement. The fact is that no major players on the Right are saying that if your gay you have to go to a certain school, use a separate bathroom or any of the other Jim Crow laws that segregated our society for so long. It's ridiculous to try and link the two.

You don't see the ability to publicly declare your love and commitment to the most important person in your life as a civil right? Maybe that's because you haven't been told that your relationship with your significant other is completely illegitimate and undeserving or unworthy of recognition by the world ever before. Of course, you don't have to take my word for it. What about, say, the word of the Supreme Court? I mean, it's not like they ever unanimously said that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival." Oh, wait, they already did! Never mind.


The SCOTUS has taken up DOMA challenges and I would expect a ruling over the next few months, not sure which rulings your citing. Also if you base your self worth and commitment to your SO on what others say then that's kinda sad, whether your SO is another man or woman.
 
2012-11-08 09:53:52 AM  

CheapEngineer: SouthParkCon: SouthParkCon: whidbey: SouthParkCon: DERP

whidbey: (I saved you the hassle of doing it)

I actually didn't have you favorited as a douchebag.

\FTFM


Fark...Left-Wing Echo Chamber....yadda yadda yadda...

Please put my comments in blue or pink :).
 
2012-11-08 10:20:55 AM  
I hope Obama doesn't give an inch... Sequestration, tough as it is, helps balance the budget... if Republicans would rather let tax cuts expire than extend them for only the middle-class and the poor, then they can do that, I'll pay a little more, but that's ok.
 
2012-11-08 10:37:54 AM  

naughtyrev: So he wants Obama to go to the left, then.


Thread over.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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