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.

(Miami Herald)   Not on Fark: politics are poisonous. Left has seceded from right, fact has seceded from media, compromise has seceded from negotiation, pragmatism has seceded from legislation   (miamiherald.com ) divider line
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

1983 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jan 2013 at 9:47 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-01-21 09:48:20 AM  
Here's a challenge for those who aspire to become political scientists or supreme rulers of the universe: Write a short constitutional amendment that neuters large political parties without unreasonably infringing on the rights of people to band together to promote shared interests.

The old system, "no Republicans in the South," was reasonably effective.
 
2013-01-21 09:49:19 AM  
If all of that weren't true, what would happen the the Fark Politics tab?
 
2013-01-21 09:51:12 AM  
No Labels would also like to see lawmakers receive an annual, nonpartisan briefing on the fiscal state of the union, the idea being that they would no longer be able to cherry pick "facts" from partisan groups to support their budget arguments.

That only work is the non-partisan briefing is the only source of information available, which would be a truly stupid suggestion.
 
2013-01-21 09:53:33 AM  
Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.
 
2013-01-21 09:53:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: No Labels would also like to see lawmakers receive an annual, nonpartisan briefing on the fiscal state of the union, the idea being that they would no longer be able to cherry pick "facts" from partisan groups to support their budget arguments.

That only works if the non-partisan briefing is the only source of information available, which would be a truly stupid suggestion.


FTFM.

Need more coffee
 
2013-01-21 09:55:53 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.


The left has moved right, just at a slower pace.
 
2013-01-21 09:57:19 AM  
No Florida tag stubby? There seemed to be a lot of Florida in that article.
 
2013-01-21 09:57:53 AM  
Leonard Pitts is a good writer when the race card stays in his pocket. I hope he
tries this more often.
 
2013-01-21 09:58:10 AM  

ZAZ: Here's a challenge for those who aspire to become political scientists or supreme rulers of the universe: Write a short constitutional amendment that neuters large political parties without unreasonably infringing on the rights of people to band together to promote shared interests.

The old system, "no Republicans in the South," was reasonably effective.


We'd be better served by one which drastically reduces the power of lobbyists, greatly expands the technical definition of bribery and increases the penalties, and somehow restricts the ability of companies to provide future employment in return for legislation.
 
2013-01-21 09:59:18 AM  

Fatbeard: No Florida tag stubby? There seemed to be a lot of Florida in that article.


Subby not stubby. Pwnd by autocorrect.
 
2013-01-21 10:00:30 AM  
fark you subby, your mom has crabs.
 
2013-01-21 10:02:00 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.


more realistically, the right wants to drive off the cliff without a seatbelt, the left wants to make sure the car has airbags when driven off the cliff
 
2013-01-21 10:02:51 AM  
FTFA: We play a zero sum game where party trumps country, reason is treason and there is an evident belief that he who yells the stupidest thing in the loudest voice, wins.

But enough about Fox News.
 
2013-01-21 10:04:34 AM  
The most poisonous of political topics used to be abortion. Now it is gun control. Democrats, give it up or you are going to lose your seat.
If you have any wisdom left in you, drop gun control now and you still have a very small chance you will get re-elected.
 
2013-01-21 10:07:43 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.


What's up with the left pretending to be neither partisans or lefties? I understand why they dont acknowledge that they get nearly everything they want but is that an active cognitive dismissal or just passive?
 
2013-01-21 10:11:16 AM  

rev. dave: The most poisonous of political topics used to be abortion. Now it is gun control. Democrats, give it up or you are going to lose your seat.
If you have any wisdom left in you, drop gun control now and you still have a very small chance you will get re-elected.


What if we promise to only perform abortions with guns? Would that work? What if we classify the regular mass murders and spree killings as very very late term abortions? Is that a reasonable compromise?
 
2013-01-21 10:12:36 AM  

rev. dave: The most poisonous of political topics used to be abortion. Now it is gun control. Democrats, give it up or you are going to lose your seat.
If you have any wisdom left in you, drop gun control now and you still have a very small chance you will get re-elected.


Speaking of being disconnected from reality....

Gallup Poll. Jan. 17, 2013. N=1,021 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.


"As you may know, yesterday President Obama proposed a set of new laws designed to reduce gun violence in the United States. From what you know or have read about this, would you want your representative in Congress to vote for or against these proposed new laws?"

Vote for 53%
Vote against 41%
Unsure 7 %

1/17/13
 
2013-01-21 10:13:27 AM  
So what you're saying is that this inhuman sack of monkey crap is to blame:

upload.wikimedia.org
//Mo' Money, Mo' Gridlock
 
2013-01-21 10:14:09 AM  

Mrbogey: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.

What's up with the left pretending to be neither partisans or lefties? I understand why they dont acknowledge that they get nearly everything they want but is that an active cognitive dismissal or just passive?


You live in a fantasy world. You're in so deep you can't even comprehend the straightforward point I was making.
 
2013-01-21 10:14:11 AM  
The only "fix" is to abolish democracy. Literally everything people complain about now has been going on for hundreds of years. This is how democracy works, always has worked, and always will work. The only thing that has changed is your awareness of it.
 
2013-01-21 10:16:56 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.


Came to say this. While the "both sides are bad" card is an excellent means for induviduals to rationalize an irrational position and for lazy reporters to pretend to be "fair and balanced"; in reality the reason why the government is so dysfunctional can be directly attributed to a select group of Tea Party Republicans who have held the process hostage.
 
2013-01-21 10:16:57 AM  
I don't think the problem is so much one of a particular issue. I think that when 'elite' becomes a bad word the country is settling for an obviously ignorant politician. When 'conservative' means that you can tell someone what to smoke, what medical procedures they can have done, who they can sleep with, and if they're even allowed to die you've perverted the word.
The problem is that the right in this country has decided that instead of compromise they're going to bury their heads in the sand and not negotiate on anything. They can sign pledges, hide behind the flag, or call people names.
The left isn't cohesive enough to be as obstinate as the GOP has been.
When you actively lobby to ban science (creationism/Darwinism), and when you present the definition of a word as the diametric opposite of what it really means, you've proven that you're dumb, or ignorant, or both and that you want the people of this country to be just as stupid as you are.

/done ranting
 
2013-01-21 10:17:42 AM  

ampoliros: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.

The left has moved right, just at a slower pace.


We're exhausted from battling screaming stupidity. I'm at the point where I think I have to support No Labels for a while, just to stop the bleeding. Then I can get back to being a commie agitator.
 
2013-01-21 10:19:19 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Mrbogey: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.

What's up with the left pretending to be neither partisans or lefties? I understand why they dont acknowledge that they get nearly everything they want but is that an active cognitive dismissal or just passive?

You live in a fantasy world. You're in so deep you can't even comprehend the straightforward point I was making.


Yup. I failed to acknowledge the straightforward incorrect point you made. Running off the cliff is now what one does when they dont agree to everything the Democrats propose.
 
2013-01-21 10:21:48 AM  

Mrbogey: Yup. I failed to acknowledge the straightforward incorrect point you made. Running off the cliff is now what one does when they dont agree to everything the Democrats propose.


QED

Got any more proof that I'm right that you'd like to offer up?
 
2013-01-21 10:22:43 AM  
As a right wing troll/GOP shill/dirty lib, I say humor has seceded from politics.
 
2013-01-21 10:23:37 AM  

Mrbogey: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.

What's up with the left pretending to be neither partisans or lefties?


That's not it.

The right has completely divorced itself from rationality. They are willingly, enthusiastically, opposed to not only simple reality... but from the very concept of rationality itself. In nearly every way.

It wasn't this way 12 years ago, when I first started visiting Fark. Back then, I considered myself right in the middle of the spectrum... or at least, between the 45-yard-lines. But the steady diet of outright lies and propaganda coming from the right-wing noise machine has convinced a significant percentage of my fellow citizens to believe, devoutly, in absurdities. So, by default, I am now a "lefty"... because I still believe in 10th-grade biology, and don't believe that mandatory private health insurance coverage is tantamount to socialism.

I wish it wasn't this way. But it is.
 
2013-01-21 10:23:41 AM  

Mrbogey: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Mrbogey: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.

What's up with the left pretending to be neither partisans or lefties? I understand why they dont acknowledge that they get nearly everything they want but is that an active cognitive dismissal or just passive?

You live in a fantasy world. You're in so deep you can't even comprehend the straightforward point I was making.

Yup. I failed to acknowledge the straightforward incorrect point you made. Running off the cliff is now what one does when they dont agree to everything the Democrats propose.


The Republicans don't even agree to what their own leadership proposes.
 
2013-01-21 10:24:46 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: rev. dave: The most poisonous of political topics used to be abortion. Now it is gun control. Democrats, give it up or you are going to lose your seat.
If you have any wisdom left in you, drop gun control now and you still have a very small chance you will get re-elected.

Speaking of being disconnected from reality....

Gallup Poll. Jan. 17, 2013. N=1,021 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.


"As you may know, yesterday President Obama proposed a set of new laws designed to reduce gun violence in the United States. From what you know or have read about this, would you want your representative in Congress to vote for or against these proposed new laws?"

Vote for 53%
Vote against 41%
Unsure 7 %

1/17/13


A poorly worded question. Everyone wants to reduce gun violence.
 
2013-01-21 10:25:05 AM  

ZAZ: Write a short constitutional amendment that neuters large political parties without unreasonably infringing on the rights of people to band together to promote shared interests.


"Ballots shall not any names nor emblems except of the candidates"
 
2013-01-21 10:25:15 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: fark you subby, your mom has crabs.


Crabs have been eliminated because we all shave. Socialism and universal healthcare.
 
2013-01-21 10:25:33 AM  

Khryswhy: I don't think the problem is so much one of a particular issue. I think that when 'elite' becomes a bad word the country is settling for an obviously ignorant politician. When 'conservative' means that you can tell someone what to smoke, what medical procedures they can have done, who they can sleep with, and if they're even allowed to die you've perverted the word.
The problem is that the right in this country has decided that instead of compromise they're going to bury their heads in the sand and not negotiate on anything. They can sign pledges, hide behind the flag, or call people names.
The left isn't cohesive enough to be as obstinate as the GOP has been.
When you actively lobby to ban science (creationism/Darwinism), and when you present the definition of a word as the diametric opposite of what it really means, you've proven that you're dumb, or ignorant, or both and that you want the people of this country to be just as stupid as you are.

/done ranting


You had to make a grown man simultaneously laugh and cry, you bastard.

/Going to sit, drink beer, stew.
//Favorited, dammit so much.
 
2013-01-21 10:26:07 AM  

Lehk: ZAZ: Write a short constitutional amendment that neuters large political parties without unreasonably infringing on the rights of people to band together to promote shared interests.

"Ballots shall not carry any names nor emblems except of the candidates"


FTFM
 
2013-01-21 10:26:43 AM  

Mrbogey: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Mrbogey: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Left has seceded from right

Immediate FAIL. The left hasn't seceded from anything. The right ran screaming and went off a cliff. Don't blame the left for refusing to follow them.

What's up with the left pretending to be neither partisans or lefties? I understand why they dont acknowledge that they get nearly everything they want but is that an active cognitive dismissal or just passive?

You live in a fantasy world. You're in so deep you can't even comprehend the straightforward point I was making.

Yup. I failed to acknowledge the straightforward incorrect point you made. Running off the cliff is now what one does when they dont agree to everything the Democrats propose.


Not, running off a cliff is when you literally sign a pledge never to raise taxes, no matter the circumstances, because some guy had a hard-on for Ayn Rand when he was 12
 
2013-01-21 10:28:45 AM  

Khryswhy: when you present the definition of a word as the diametric opposite of what it really means,


fair? balanced? truth-giver? science? liberal? patriot? journalism?

help me out here eh?
 
2013-01-21 10:29:42 AM  

rev. dave: The most poisonous of political topics used to be abortion. Now it is gun control. Democrats, give it up or you are going to lose your seat.
If you have any wisdom left in you, drop gun control now and you still have a very small chance you will get re-elected.


how do I have a reasonable/rational conversation with someone who really, honestly and truly believes that i'm an apostate traitor to the Republican party?  if someone really believes that anyone different, anyone from the Democratic party is an agent of a vastly powerful supernatural evil...how can I possibly hope to have a talk about budget issues with that person?  the problem I encounter when dealing with Republicans (at least these days) is that not do they believe i'm wrong - without thinking about what I said, i'm automatically wrong - but that i'm also a religious heretic for daring to disagree with the party of God almighty.

I haven't figured out how to cross that divide.  I'm not sure I can.
 
2013-01-21 10:30:38 AM  
Nothing will change as long as we continue to elect these sanctimonious politicians whose egos and personal gains outweigh governing the public. There's no middle ground anymore.
 
2013-01-21 10:30:49 AM  

Cataholic: Philip Francis Queeg: rev. dave: The most poisonous of political topics used to be abortion. Now it is gun control. Democrats, give it up or you are going to lose your seat.
If you have any wisdom left in you, drop gun control now and you still have a very small chance you will get re-elected.

Speaking of being disconnected from reality....

Gallup Poll. Jan. 17, 2013. N=1,021 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.


"As you may know, yesterday President Obama proposed a set of new laws designed to reduce gun violence in the United States. From what you know or have read about this, would you want your representative in Congress to vote for or against these proposed new laws?"

Vote for 53%
Vote against 41%
Unsure 7 %

1/17/13

A poorly worded question. Everyone wants to reduce gun violence.


Perhaps you prefer this question...


"Do you favor or oppose each of the following proposals to reduce gun violence? . . ."

"Banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons"

Favor 54

Oppose 42

Unsure 3

Fox News Poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R). Jan. 15-17, 2013. N=1,008 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
 
2013-01-21 10:31:36 AM  

Lehk: Lehk: ZAZ: Write a short constitutional amendment that neuters large political parties without unreasonably infringing on the rights of people to band together to promote shared interests.

"Ballots shall not carry any names nor emblems except of the candidates"

FTFM


That wouldn't neuter large political parties at all.
 
MFK
2013-01-21 10:31:48 AM  
As a librul who is sick to death of derp and partisanship, I would love to get behind "No Labels" if I felt it was something other than a moderate Republican attempt at rebranding. Their national leaders are Jon Huntsman, a conservative mormon ex-governor and Joe Manchin a conservative blue dog democrat from west Virginia.

No Labels just seems like an attempt to promote a moderate GOP agenda while claiming to be non-partisan and while it is refreshing to see the GOP willing to stand up to the derp, it's basically neocons trying to get away from the toxic republican brand.
 
2013-01-21 10:32:09 AM  

ZAZ: Here's a challenge for those who aspire to become political scientists or supreme rulers of the universe: Write a short constitutional amendment that neuters large political parties without unreasonably infringing on the rights of people to band together to promote shared interests.


Radically change the electoral system: end single-seat districts, and instead seat parties proportionally to the votes they receive. Every party which receives more than 10% of the nationwide vote is guaranteed seats. (And if you're being really adventurous, design a system where voters express ranked preferences instead of just voting for one party.)

(The objection you get when you propose this is that it also destroys local constituencies. To that I say "good: that's a conflict of interest at the federal level". Let issues that only affect one local constituency get handled at the local or state level. If the same issue affects lots of local constituencies, then handle it at the national policy level.)

Note that this doesn't neuter large political parties exactly: but it breaks their stranglehold on office.
 
2013-01-21 10:32:11 AM  
If only the Dems in congress had been as obstructionist after 2006 as the GOP has been since 2010... Imagine the messes we'd be out of. Now the GOP's obstructionism is making it impossible to clean up the messes they made during the presidency of The Forgotten One Who Shall Not Be Named.

Fark them.
 
2013-01-21 10:33:05 AM  

Lost Thought 00: The only "fix" is to abolish democracy. Literally everything people complain about now has been going on for hundreds of years. This is how democracy works, always has worked, and always will work. The only thing that has changed is your awareness of it.


I, for one, welcome the new robot overlords of our technocratic utopia.
 
2013-01-21 10:33:07 AM  

Cataholic: Philip Francis Queeg: rev. dave: The most poisonous of political topics used to be abortion. Now it is gun control. Democrats, give it up or you are going to lose your seat.
If you have any wisdom left in you, drop gun control now and you still have a very small chance you will get re-elected.

Speaking of being disconnected from reality....

Gallup Poll. Jan. 17, 2013. N=1,021 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.


"As you may know, yesterday President Obama proposed a set of new laws designed to reduce gun violence in the United States. From what you know or have read about this, would you want your representative in Congress to vote for or against these proposed new laws?"

Vote for 53%
Vote against 41%
Unsure 7 %

1/17/13

A poorly worded question. Everyone wants to reduce gun violence.


really? Even the NRA? When people are killed by guns, people want to buy guns to protect themselves. When people are killed in mass shootings, the threat of increased gun control legislation really drives sales through the roof especially when the NRA propaganda machine goes in overdrive.

There is no financial incentive for the NRA to want to reduce gun violence, and those are the only incentives they care about.
 
2013-01-21 10:34:01 AM  

Cataholic: A poorly worded question. Everyone wants to reduce gun violence.


Not the NRA. They would lose business.
 
2013-01-21 10:34:06 AM  

MFK: As a librul who is sick to death of derp and partisanship, I would love to get behind "No Labels" if I felt it was something other than a moderate Republican attempt at rebranding. Their national leaders are Jon Huntsman, a conservative mormon ex-governor and Joe Manchin a conservative blue dog democrat from west Virginia.

No Labels just seems like an attempt to promote a moderate GOP agenda while claiming to be non-partisan and while it is refreshing to see the GOP willing to stand up to the derp, it's basically neocons trying to get away from the toxic republican brand.


you can't be a 'moderate' and be a Republican.  not any more.  the GOP itself has made it clear - either you sign up for ALL the Republican crazy, or you're out of the party.  Moderates are weak, moderates can't be trusted.  Moderates 'compromise'.  Republicans are strong, Republicans DO NOT compromise.  Republicans...are not moderate.  they've made that point extremely clear.  the GOP is no place for moderates.
 
2013-01-21 10:34:33 AM  

Zagloba: ZAZ: Here's a challenge for those who aspire to become political scientists or supreme rulers of the universe: Write a short constitutional amendment that neuters large political parties without unreasonably infringing on the rights of people to band together to promote shared interests.

Radically change the electoral system: end single-seat districts, and instead seat parties proportionally to the votes they receive. Every party which receives more than 10% of the nationwide vote is guaranteed seats. (And if you're being really adventurous, design a system where voters express ranked preferences instead of just voting for one party.)

(The objection you get when you propose this is that it also destroys local constituencies. To that I say "good: that's a conflict of interest at the federal level". Let issues that only affect one local constituency get handled at the local or state level. If the same issue affects lots of local constituencies, then handle it at the national policy level.)

Note that this doesn't neuter large political parties exactly: but it breaks their stranglehold on office.


Far from neutering the parties it gives them far more power. It gives the parties complete control over who serves in office, and the means to enforce strict adherence to the party line.
 
2013-01-21 10:34:36 AM  

DubyaHater: Nothing will change as long as we continue to elect these sanctimonious politicians whose egos and personal gains outweigh governing the public. There's no middle ground anymore.


Positions of power attract ambitious, power-hungry people; always have, always will.
 
2013-01-21 10:36:10 AM  

qorkfiend: DubyaHater: Nothing will change as long as we continue to elect these sanctimonious politicians whose egos and personal gains outweigh governing the public. There's no middle ground anymore.

Positions of power attract ambitious, power-hungry people; always have, always will.


oddly enough, i'm ok with people who wear their personality flaws on their sleeve.  sure, they might be vain, preening egomaniacs...but at least I know what i'm dealing with.  its the honest guys with good intentions that always seem to get us into the most trouble.
 
2013-01-21 10:36:29 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Zagloba: ZAZ: Here's a challenge for those who aspire to become political scientists or supreme rulers of the universe: Write a short constitutional amendment that neuters large political parties without unreasonably infringing on the rights of people to band together to promote shared interests.

Radically change the electoral system: end single-seat districts, and instead seat parties proportionally to the votes they receive. Every party which receives more than 10% of the nationwide vote is guaranteed seats. (And if you're being really adventurous, design a system where voters express ranked preferences instead of just voting for one party.)

(The objection you get when you propose this is that it also destroys local constituencies. To that I say "good: that's a conflict of interest at the federal level". Let issues that only affect one local constituency get handled at the local or state level. If the same issue affects lots of local constituencies, then handle it at the national policy level.)

Note that this doesn't neuter large political parties exactly: but it breaks their stranglehold on office.

Far from neutering the parties it gives them far more power. It gives the parties complete control over who serves in office, and the means to enforce strict adherence to the party line.


What, you don't find the idea of Reince Priebus and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz personally selecting the entirety of Congress a desired outcome?
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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