Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook

Since 1953, California has had 4 Democratic governors and 5 Republicans. 22.8 years in office for the Democrats versus 36.4 years for the Republicans. Saint Reagan was governor of CA for 8 years, but I bet you conveniently forgot that.

From Wikipedia: "San Diego County has historically been thought of as a Republican stronghold. The Republican presidential nominee carried the county in every presidential election from 1948 through 2004, except in 1992 when Bill Clinton won a plurality. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of votes in San Diego County since World War II."

So you also have no idea what you're talking about.

/I miss home.

The irony is, they probably spent that $100M on $100 thousand worth of stuff.
They don't care, it's not their money.

Joe Blowme: And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now? And yet they have done nothing about this horror you describe, why? They waste too much money on stupid shiat and elect stupid people who love to spend other peoples money and then take out loans in other peoples names and waste that too.... but yea, its all the gop from the 70s fault right? Please stay in Cali, you belong there.

Because you need a 2/3 majority to repeal it. And you'd need almost all the Democrats to vote for repeal. I have to give the backers it was a clever plan, grants some of the people a small tax break, and themselves a massive tax break, that effectively splits the electorate into those that would benefit from a repeal and those that would suffer, and then require a 2/3 super-majority to repeal. Brilliant.

SlothB77: gweilo8888: It's cute how you think I'm reading all this. What I'm actually hearing is HURRR DURRRR DURRRR I'M A GREEDY FARKWAD.

and then you'll say that republicans are the uninformed voters while wondering why raising taxes didn't work.

HURRDY DURRDY DURR.

The stupid is everywhere, submitter:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-02/harrisburg-pennsylvania-b a nkruptcy-ban-to-be-extended

http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-stories/2011/08/timeline_how_jeffe r son_countys.html

Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook

You the man. I see you have already taken hits for your view with one nimrod pointing out "But, but there were Republican Governors!!!" as if the Governors held power over the Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956.

He has no idea what he is talking about.

He will not be missed.

Psycoholic_Slag: Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook

You the man. I see you have already taken hits for your view with one nimrod pointing out "But, but there were Republican Governors!!!" as if the Governors held power over the Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956.

He has no idea what he is talking about.

He will not be missed.

Another one who didn't pay attention in third grade civics. Lemme break it down for you:

50 +1% is a simple majority.
Out of a group of 100 people, if 51 of them voted for something, that thing becomes what they want (rule, law, what to have for lunch etc).
If that group makes a rule that for something to pass a vote it needs at least 2/3rds (66 people) or 3/5ths (60 people) or any number higher than 51 to vote in the affirmative for it.
This means that there must be a combination of those in both the majority and the minority group for this thing to pass a vote. This is a very effective check (as in "checks and balances") on the power of the majority group, and makes sure the minority group has a say in how things are done. Even if the majority group had the number of people necessary to secure the vote in their favor, there is no guarantee that all in the majority group will vote in the affirmative, and the measure fails.

So the next time you say some dumb sh*t like "Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956", remember exactly what a "majority" is when it comes to government and the law. It doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.

rewind2846: So the next time you say some dumb sh*t like "Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956", remember exactly what a "majority" is when it comes to government and the law. It doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.

Exactly. With a 2/3 requirement to pass a bill, the line that represents an actual majority is not 51% it 67%. The Democrats haven't had a super majority in California since the depression. One those things that bothers me about people elsewhere, they think 'California is Liberal' and then they 'know' by induction how things work in this state, really they have no idea.

gibbon1: rewind2846: So the next time you say some dumb sh*t like "Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956", remember exactly what a "majority" is when it comes to government and the law. It doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.

Exactly. With a 2/3 requirement to pass a bill, the line that represents an actual majority is not 51% it 67%. The Democrats haven't had a super majority in California since the depression. One those things that bothers me about people elsewhere, they think 'California is Liberal' and then they 'know' by induction how things work in this state, really they have no idea.

Well they have a super majority now and trust me they're going to go wild and realllly fark things up & anyone who has ever taken a civics class should know we're a representative republic not a democracy it's not majority rules in the states.

rewind2846: Psycoholic_Slag: Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook

You the man. I see you have already taken hits for your view with one nimrod pointing out "But, but there were Republican Governors!!!" as if the Governors held power over the Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956.

He has no idea what he is talking about.

He will not be missed.

Another one who didn't pay attention in third grade civics. Lemme break it down for you:

50 +1% is a simple majority.
Out of a group of 100 people, if 51 of them voted for something, that thing becomes what they want (rule, law, what to have for lunch etc).
If that group makes a rule that for something to pass a vote it needs at least 2/3rds (66 people) or 3/5ths (60 people) or any number higher than 51 to vote in the affirmative for it.
This means that there must be a combination of those in both the majority and the minority group for this thing to pass a vote. This is a very effective check (as in "checks and balances") on the power of the majority group, and makes sure the minority group has a say in how things are done. Even if the majority group had the number of people necessary to secure the vote in their favor, there is no guarantee that all in the majority group will vote in the affirmative, and the measure fails.

So the next time you say some dumb sh*t like "Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956", remember exactly what a "majority" is when it comes to government and the law. It doe ...

Yes I understand the difference between majority and super majority in the Senate. The Democrats currently hold a super majority.
The original post I was responding to was regarding the hate and backlash Fark dishes out to anyone who posts anything bad about the Democrats or liberals. I didn't intend to get into the details of 3rd grade civics.

FWIW, I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I always vote third party and believe the arena of partisan politics is populated by fools.

Psycoholic_Slag: The original post I was responding to was regarding the hate and backlash Fark dishes out to anyone who posts anything bad about the Democrats or liberals. I didn't intend to get into the details of 3rd grade civics.

Then lemme splain about the derision some people get when trying to insult or denigrate "liberals" or democrats.. The reasons why the people who get that flack are the very same reasons why some liberals who post derogatory things about republicans get the flack... what they post is, for lack of a better term, stupid.

There are plenty of conservatives who post their opinions about democrats and liberals here, and if you'll notice, the ones who do so with facts, logic and sense and not bullsh*t pulled from their ass and WND or other DERPsites are debated and sometimes even congratulated for their point of view. But what the 'tards blow in with KENYAN USRPER N0BAMA MOOSLIM WHHAARRRGARBBLL!, they deserve what they get.

It's just a matter of thinking before you post. If you have charts or graphs or links, get them from reputable sources. If they are government sources (like unemployment numbers), their correctness has nothing to do with who is sitting in the Oval Office, so don't use them to prop up your argument when the guy you like is in the Big Chair and to discredit others arguments when someone from the other party is warming the seat. Use them to explain your point of view in fully and in context, without omissions. Eschew conspiracy theories and other alarmist bullsh*t. Don't threadsh*t and run. In fact, if what you post is true and provable from more than once source that doesn't include a third-hand re-report from someone's blog no one can say sh*t about it anyway. It is what it is.

Take the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC, for example. You might not like her liberal politics, but she will spend half the show explaining one chart she puts up, and has all the data to back up her assertions... names, dates, times, places, whatever, in exhausting detail. She and her staff do their homework and fact check sh*t to death. When she gets a fact, or a number, or a name or anything else wrong, she will correct that error herself - on the air - as soon as it is pointed out to her, and so do the other show hosts on that network. You will NEVER see this on FoxNews, ever.

In other words, don't be Fox News. "Some people say" is NEVER a good start to any statement which is designed to convince any thinking person that the point you're about to make is true.

Phoenix_M:
Well they have a super majority now and trust me they're going to go wild and realllly fark things up & anyone who has ever taken a civics class should know we're a representative republic not a democracy it's not majority rules in the states.

Another fail.

See, democrats don't often vote in lockstep (or should I say goose-step) with the party leaders wishes, and so that "super majority" means exactly diddly-squat. There is no guarantee that all democrats will vote as a group in the affirmative for anything, including what to have for lunch. That is one of the hallmarks of being a democrat. Republicans on the other hand ask only "how high" when told to jump by the party elite, and more often than not vote almost as a bloc. This is why if the republicans had this type of numerical advantage in the california legislature, the democrats may as well stay home. There wouldn't be anything for them to do.

As I said before, "majority" doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.

rewind2846: Phoenix_M:
Well they have a super majority now and trust me they're going to go wild and realllly fark things up & anyone who has ever taken a civics class should know we're a representative republic not a democracy it's not majority rules in the states.

Another fail.

See, democrats don't often vote in lockstep (or should I say goose-step) with the party leaders wishes, and so that "super majority" means exactly diddly-squat. There is no guarantee that all democrats will vote as a group in the affirmative for anything, including what to have for lunch. That is one of the hallmarks of being a democrat. Republicans on the other hand ask only "how high" when told to jump by the party elite, and more often than not vote almost as a bloc. This is why if the republicans had this type of numerical advantage in the california legislature, the democrats may as well stay home. There wouldn't be anything for them to do.

As I said before, "majority" doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.

Democrats in California now have a supermajority not just a majority so they can pass/repeal what they want and will. You're the one who doesn't seem to know what "majority vs supermajority" means.

Phoenix_M:

As I said before, "majority" doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.

Democrats in California now have a supermajority not just a majority so they can pass/repeal what they want and will. You're the one who doesn't seem to know what "majority vs supermajority" means.

I know exactly what it means. What you don't understand is (once again) that the democrats are much less likely to vote for the same thing at the same time as a group than republicans in the same situation, so the term "supermajority" has less impact than if the tables were reversed.

Numbers do not always equal votes.