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.

(Fox News)   Three days until America finally accepts its future destiny as a dystopian hellscape   (foxnews.com) divider line 143
    More: Cool, Boone Pickens, managements, Bob Woodward, David Kerley, crimes against nature, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, R. E. M  
•       •       •

2370 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Feb 2013 at 6:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-26 07:15:18 PM  
So it's #scarequester again?  I thought we had all decided on #obamaquester.  I can't keep track.
 
2013-02-26 07:17:35 PM  
I'm too busy being amused at Fox accusing the "mainstream" media of hysteria and hyperbole.

Because Fox is such a bastion of rational discourse and objective analysis.
 
2013-02-26 07:18:27 PM  

Lord Jubjub: insano: WTFDYW: We will move on without missing hardly a beat. As a country, we need a "hair cut". We've been spending like there's no tomorrow at least since I graduated high school in 1981.

Yeah we were really spending too much on curing Alzheimer's and cancer and diabetes. Those automatic cuts to NIH and NSF funding were surely just the thing we needed to end the wanton spending. While we're at it, let's get a bunch of people laid off and thus spending less money into the economy; that's exactly what we need coming out of the recession.

Yeah, any budget cuts will come from releasing the most dangerous criminals and letting children starve.  Surely, there is no alternative.


Um, I'm not exaggerating. Research money will be cut, people will lose their jobs, and, no, no alternatives have been put forth by congress which include targeted rather than across-the-board cuts.
 
2013-02-26 07:20:01 PM  
Seriously, how farking hard can a 1.2% cut to the budget hurt? It's a goddamn rounding error compared to the money we are spending out of our children's piggy bank.
 
2013-02-26 07:20:09 PM  
I'd just like to point out that I generally don't listen to someone who apparently hasn't left the 80's:

R.E.M. sang, "It's the end of the world as we know it."

like Mr. T had taken over headline writing.

Who knows, tomorrow's headline may lament "dogs and cats living together."

find a way to cut in a Ginsu factory.
 
2013-02-26 07:22:25 PM  

Circusdog320: the article failed to mention conservatives going off full tilt about a couple of parked aircraft carriers...My nutty republican "friend" said we should prepare for massive attack!


WOLVERINES!


I guess we need some protection from an angel to keep us safe from harm.
 
2013-02-26 07:23:37 PM  

exick: 10 posts in and no one has posted a Majora's Mask screen yet? Fark, I am disappoint.


img1.etsystatic.com
 
2013-02-26 07:28:10 PM  
d1ovi2g6vebctw.cloudfront.net
 
2013-02-26 07:28:15 PM  
The issue isn't the amount of the cuts, it's their targets. These cuts were designed to hurt as an impetus for action. They are meant to be awful for the country, though some of the language used in the news is hyperbolic. We could probably cut the same amount more reasonably without causing huge problems, but in this case the cuts are coming in areas where they are intended to cause problems. It's just a shame Congress underestimated their own obstinance.
 
2013-02-26 07:30:01 PM  

Circusdog320: the article failed to mention conservatives going off full tilt about a couple of parked aircraft carriers...My nutty republican "friend" said we should prepare for massive attack!


WOLVERINES!


And THAT is along the same lines of what I got from a John McCain soundbite, as though the Republicans were crying about spending cuts, the very thing they've wanted.  It made my head hurt!
 
2013-02-26 07:30:08 PM  
www.badmovies.org
 
2013-02-26 07:30:30 PM  

Tannax: Seriously, how farking hard can a 1.2% cut to the budget hurt? It's a goddamn rounding error compared to the money we are spending out of our children's piggy bank.


You really don't know much about budgets, do you?

The spending cuts are to:

1) discretionary spending

and

2) apply only to the remainder of the budget year.

To put that into perspective, current discretionary spending is at an historic low as a percentage of GDP.  So, are current taxes.  If we went back to the tax rates of the 1990s, we'd be out of this mess.  Instantly.
 
2013-02-26 07:31:10 PM  
Just watched Speaker Boehner on CBS Evening News.

Here is what he asserts:
1. Immigration Depratment releasing detainees because of budget shortfalls is fault of Obama's Justice Department and  Obama's Federal INS-controlled facilities. Whar more money to feed, guard and house illegals? Obama just doing this to scare true Americans®

2. Fartbongo got all his tax increases in January when Bush Tax Cuts were allowed to expire. So still government does not have revenue problem... government has spending problem.

3. Obama's sequester can only be fixed by Democrats in the Senate. Boehner claims that they have TWICE proven that everything will be alright if we just gut MEDICARE, marginalize and destroy  Social Security by turning it into a 'means-tested' welfare system, fark the poors and close down EVERY single Federal Government agency that doesn't directly benefit the industrial military complex, the oil companies and the corporate agriculture monopoly.

Sadly missing from the above was any realistic or useful ideas or hint of compromise. Not a peep about ending tax breaks, cutting subsidies to oil and exploration companies, corn production, ethanol and corporate industrial farms.  Nor was he addressing lucrative government, military and 'defense' contracts.

By all means, cut waste, reel in unchecked spending, penalize fraud, and rethink and retool social, education, healthcare and prison systems. But only the the people that lost the 2012 presidential elections and lost House seats are still thinking what they've been doing for the past 35-40 years is a good idea. You lost the 2012 elections because more people are getting wise to the game.You will be better served if you stop trying to play the victim in the blame game. You will be better served if you stop believing that every person who is non-white and not a Republican is either, 'illegal',lazy,  taking drugs and/or on welfare. You will finally get it through your thick heads that teachers, doctors, police and firemen are just as valuable as soldiers and civilian DOD employees.
 
2013-02-26 07:31:39 PM  

smitty04: [d1ovi2g6vebctw.cloudfront.net image 300x229]


timethemoment.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-26 07:35:09 PM  

smitty04: [d1ovi2g6vebctw.cloudfront.net image 300x229]


Wrong.

The president's plan was something much more sensible: he proposed a system that would cut spending AND raise taxes if the Congress couldn't get its act together.  The Republicans rejected the offer.

It was the Republicans, not the president, who insisted that the sequester consist entirely of tax cuts.

Keep in mind that I think the president's plan, even though it was much more sensible than the Republican idea, was stupid policy.  The best solution was to 1) return tax rates to those of the 1990s and 2) impose a surtax to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
 
2013-02-26 07:35:27 PM  

eraser8: Tannax: Seriously, how farking hard can a 1.2% cut to the budget hurt? It's a goddamn rounding error compared to the money we are spending out of our children's piggy bank.

You really don't know much about budgets, do you?

The spending cuts are to:

1) discretionary spending

and

2) apply only to the remainder of the budget year.

To put that into perspective, current discretionary spending is at an historic low as a percentage of GDP.  So, are current taxes.  If we went back to the tax rates of the 1990s, we'd be out of this mess.  Instantly.


and go back to the tax rates of 1960 and I bet the majority of americans would get a nice annual check from uncle sam as that trickle-down from the job creators finally, uh, trickled down.

trickled trickles, don rickles
 
2013-02-26 07:35:48 PM  

NeoCortex42: So from my tea party family member, it seems the current talking point is that the sequestor won't really affect anybody. Nobody is getting laid off and places will still be hiring.  That's good to know.


Also, as someone who finishes my active duty military service this summer, it is making job hunting very difficult.  Both private contractor and federal jobs in my field have dried up on account of the budget issues.
 
2013-02-26 07:36:36 PM  
Dear Republicans,

Do you goddamn job.

Love and kisses,

Every sane person in the United States
 
2013-02-26 07:37:11 PM  
It's dystopian to cut defense spending?

Which party refused to nation credit card bill?
 
2013-02-26 07:38:16 PM  

Omahawg: eraser8: Tannax: Seriously, how farking hard can a 1.2% cut to the budget hurt? It's a goddamn rounding error compared to the money we are spending out of our children's piggy bank.

You really don't know much about budgets, do you?

The spending cuts are to:

1) discretionary spending

and

2) apply only to the remainder of the budget year.

To put that into perspective, current discretionary spending is at an historic low as a percentage of GDP.  So, are current taxes.  If we went back to the tax rates of the 1990s, we'd be out of this mess.  Instantly.

and go back to the tax rates of 1960 and I bet the majority of americans would get a nice annual check from uncle sam as that trickle-down from the job creators finally, uh, trickled down.

trickled trickles, don rickles


More like pissing on them
 
2013-02-26 07:41:28 PM  

Omahawg: and go back to the tax rates of 1960 and I bet the majority of americans would get a nice annual check from uncle sam as that trickle-down from the job creators finally, uh, trickled down.


True.  But, we'd have to bear the gnashing of teeth about how the 1950s and early 1960s -- which the teabaggers ordinarily cite as the country's golden age -- were actually a period of overt socialism...even apart from the marginal tax rates of the time.  I mean, during that time, airlines couldn't change their prices without government approval.  And, private citizens couldn't own the telephones in their houses (they belonged to AT&T).

One almost gets the impression that what the teabaggers miss most about the 1950s and early 1960s was the fact that black folk knew their place...and, weren't uppity enough to win the presidency.
 
2013-02-26 07:43:18 PM  
z.about.com
 
2013-02-26 07:43:32 PM  
Well, at least about 600k poor women and children won't get to eat for 6 months, so that's good.
 
2013-02-26 07:44:26 PM  
www.dbcovers.com
 
2013-02-26 07:45:34 PM  
I just hope our richest comrades won't be hurt too much in all this. They've had such a hard time lately.
 
2013-02-26 07:45:41 PM  

The WindowLicker: NeoCortex42: So from my tea party family member, it seems the current talking point is that the sequestor won't really affect anybody. Nobody is getting laid off and places will still be hiring.  That's good to know.

Also, as someone who finishes my active duty military service this summer, it is making job hunting very difficult.  Both private contractor and federal jobs in my field have dried up on account of the budget issues.


So go find something other than defense contracting and federal jobs.  You are welcome.
 
2013-02-26 07:47:16 PM  

smitty04: [d1ovi2g6vebctw.cloudfront.net image 300x229]


What kind of fools would pass a bill with sequestration in it?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-26 07:47:57 PM  

eraser8: Omahawg: and go back to the tax rates of 1960 and I bet the majority of americans would get a nice annual check from uncle sam as that trickle-down from the job creators finally, uh, trickled down.

True.  But, we'd have to bear the gnashing of teeth about how the 1950s and early 1960s -- which the teabaggers ordinarily cite as the country's golden age -- were actually a period of overt socialism...even apart from the marginal tax rates of the time.  I mean, during that time, airlines couldn't change their prices without government approval.  And, private citizens couldn't own the telephones in their houses (they belonged to AT&T).

One almost gets the impression that what the teabaggers miss most about the 1950s and early 1960s was the fact that black folk knew their place...and, weren't uppity enough to win the presidency.


Oh Yeah!  Bring on the racism!  Hey don't forget about pretty being able to beat up homosexuals and wives at will.  Got to bring in the violence!
 
2013-02-26 07:50:00 PM  

Circusdog320: the article failed to mention conservatives going off full tilt about a couple of parked aircraft carriers...My nutty republican "friend" said we should prepare for massive attack!


WOLVERINES!


You should really get this person a copy of Civ 2, 3, 4, or 5, or maybe an old copy of Rise of Nations.  Maybe they can get a better understanding of how much naval power it would take to effectively invade the USA.  Unless they think Canada is coming for us, or Mexico, in which case one supercarrier group sitting on the dock at the beginning of a land invasion wouldn't matter.  Even with no opposing navy, it still takes a huge amount of naval transport capacity to supply and replace lost people/equipment, which is sure to happen when they near landfall and try to set up operations.  We're not exactly small on the land/air forces that would swarm them as soon as they got within range of the coast.

/Yes, those games are simplified in terms of actual warfare
//Sounds like this "friend" needs something to dumb it down a bit
 
2013-02-26 07:50:37 PM  

The WindowLicker: NeoCortex42: So from my tea party family member, it seems the current talking point is that the sequestor won't really affect anybody. Nobody is getting laid off and places will still be hiring.  That's good to know.

Also, as someone who finishes my active duty military service this summer, it is making job hunting very difficult.  Both private contractor and federal jobs in my field have dried up on account of the budget issues.


As a relatively recent physics PhD, I'm going through the same thing. If the 'solution' of this sequester is another three or six month stopgap, I'm going to be farking pissed. As long as this kind of thing is just over the horizon, hiring will be anemic at best.
 
2013-02-26 07:50:40 PM  
media.cagle.com
 
2013-02-26 07:50:49 PM  

smitty04: [z.about.com image 500x334]


While the Republicans want to pass the debt on to our children's, children's, children's, children's, children.
 
2013-02-26 07:51:25 PM  

smitty04: [z.about.com image 500x334]


So is this YoMammaObamas alt or Canis Noirs?
 
2013-02-26 07:51:42 PM  
I say, bring it on.  Elections have consequences, and that doesn't just apply to presidential elections -it applies to Congressional elections, too.  It's about time Americans get what's coming to them for continuing to give the GOP so much power in our public policy.
 
2013-02-26 07:52:55 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Circusdog320: the article failed to mention conservatives going off full tilt about a couple of parked aircraft carriers...My nutty republican "friend" said we should prepare for massive attack!


WOLVERINES!

You should really get this person a copy of Civ 2, 3, 4, or 5, or maybe an old copy of Rise of Nations.  Maybe they can get a better understanding of how much naval power it would take to effectively invade the USA.  Unless they think Canada is coming for us, or Mexico, in which case one supercarrier group sitting on the dock at the beginning of a land invasion wouldn't matter.  Even with no opposing navy, it still takes a huge amount of naval transport capacity to supply and replace lost people/equipment, which is sure to happen when they near landfall and try to set up operations.  We're not exactly small on the land/air forces that would swarm them as soon as they got within range of the coast.

/Yes, those games are simplified in terms of actual warfare
//Sounds like this "friend" needs something to dumb it down a bit


To be fair, the cartels have more firepower than the Mexican army. Hell, they are part of the Mexican Army.
 
2013-02-26 07:54:29 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I think the Republicans are going to be shocked and appalled when the Democrats don't step in to clean up their mess for them.


That's because the House Democrats have nothing to gain. The GOP is basically down to staffers and family members for support. I think the Senate Republicans will go on largely unscathed because they have been working with the other side . It's the House that keeps farking shiat up. I laughed at Boner telling the Senate to get off it's ass and do something today.He has no clue how Congress works and is completely delusional.
 
2013-02-26 07:55:13 PM  

eraser8: Tannax: Seriously, how farking hard can a 1.2% cut to the budget hurt? It's a goddamn rounding error compared to the money we are spending out of our children's piggy bank.

You really don't know much about budgets, do you?

The spending cuts are to:

1) discretionary spending

and

2) apply only to the remainder of the budget year.

To put that into perspective, current discretionary spending is at an historic low as a percentage of GDP.  So, are current taxes.  If we went back to the tax rates of the 1990s, we'd be out of this mess.  Instantly.


Don't talk down to me as if you think you are smart. First of all, the cuts come to both discretionary and Military spending. Second, only 3 months of the year will have passed....not like these cuts are comming in the last month. By the way, it is 44 billion out of 3600-ish billion.

As for going back to the 90's tax rates...I would absolutely gleefully go back to those tax rates if you would also agree for us to go back to those spending rates as well. You see, going back to those tax rates would not BAM instantly fix the budget. It wouldn't even close our deficit. We put 40% of every dollar we spend on the national credit card, and if we can't even cut 1.2%, we have no hope for a future.

Oh, and by the way, those tax increases will have to hit every single person. There isn't enough rich people in the US for us to suck dry to save us. We absolutely have a spending problem. It is immoral to continute to pretend we will have enough children to pick up our tab.
 
2013-02-26 07:58:08 PM  

sabreWulf07: NeoCortex42: So from my tea party family member, it seems the current talking point is that the sequestor won't really affect anybody. Nobody is getting laid off and places will still be hiring. That's good to know.

I have a friend who works for NOAA. She and the entire rest of the staff are being furloughed 22 days next year. The sequester is really effecting her and her family, as she is sole income for the household. Although it's probably incredibly tiresome, you can tell your tea party family member that they're wrong. Again.


I work for a government agency. We have a big facility-wide meeting with someone from up-on-high on Thursday. I can't wait to see how much they're f*cking us.
 
2013-02-26 07:58:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: smitty04: [z.about.com image 500x334]

While the Republicans want to pass the debt on to our children's, children's, children's, children's, children.


I'm pretty sure the Republicans actually want to pass the debt onto the poor.

How else can you explain the effort to eliminate corporate and income taxes and replace the revenue with increased sales taxes?
 
2013-02-26 07:59:10 PM  

czetie: I'm too busy being amused at Fox accusing the "mainstream" media of hysteria and hyperbole.

Because Fox is such a bastion of rational discourse and objective analysis.


I wonder if they waited a full 10 minutes before declaring themselves "America's Most Popular News Channel" and detailing how many millions of viewers they have.
 
2013-02-26 07:59:32 PM  
img.photobucket.com

My god.  They weren't kidding.
 
2013-02-26 08:01:45 PM  
FTA: "R.E.M. sang, "It's the end of the world as we know it." If ever there were a theme song for the liberal media's coverage of the sequester the band's iconic song would be it."


I knew Fux News doesn't have any taste, but come on man, "Bad Day" would have been so much better.
 
2013-02-26 08:02:20 PM  

Tannax: We absolutely have a spending problem.


Right now we're not spending enough.
 
2013-02-26 08:03:44 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Tannax: We absolutely have a spending problem.

Right now we're not spending enough.


LOL.  That is some mighty fine thinking right there.  You's deep man, DEEP!
 
2013-02-26 08:05:44 PM  

Tannax: Don't talk down to me as if you think you are smart. First of all, the cuts come to both discretionary and Military spending.


Um, military spending is a kind of discretionary spending.  I don't want to talk down to you...but, do you know what the phrase "discretionary spending" means?  You don't seem to.

Tannax: I would absolutely gleefully go back to those tax rates if you would also agree for us to go back to those spending rates as well.


Per capita?  ABSO-FARKING-LUTELY.  Not in absolute terms, of course...because that would be a reduction in real spending.

Tannax: Oh, and by the way, those tax increases will have to hit every single person. There isn't enough rich people in the US for us to suck dry to save us.


Under the current president, the deficit has shrunk by a serious amount.  We could balance the budget if we returned to pre-Bush taxation levels...and, if we eliminated loopholes introduced by the Republican Congress (1995-) that sought to shield lots of income from taxation.

Tannax: We absolutely have a spending problem.


Our spending as a percentage of GDP is at an historical LOW for the modern era.  You might not have been aware of it; but, it's the truth.
 
2013-02-26 08:07:38 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Tannax: We absolutely have a spending problem.

Right now we're not spending enough.


True.  But Republicans are committed to austerity and trickle-down...you know, the plans that have never worked for anyone anywhere at any time?  Yeah, that's how "conservatives" roll.
 
2013-02-26 08:08:15 PM  
The sequester is a one-day weight loss program: chop off a couple fingers, maybe a toe. No more than 2% of your body weight. (so, ok, the whole hand) No big deal, right? And clearly the most intelligent way to go about losing some weight.

Stupid, short sighted and violent. No wonder the R(ape) party likes it.
 
2013-02-26 08:09:54 PM  

GAT_00: I like how Fox seamlessly switches from denouncing Obama for creating it, never mind John Boehner proposed it, and saying it is incredibly destructive, to blaming the media for hyperbole.

Republicans of course can't understand why the above is wrong.


Not only that, Fox is mainstream media, too.
 
2013-02-26 08:10:15 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: But Republicans are committed to austerity and trickle-down...you know, the plans that have never worked for anyone anywhere at any time?


If you ignore math, reality, and history -- especially very recent history, then austerity is definitely the solution to our fiscal problems.
 
2013-02-26 08:10:30 PM  

Communist_Manifesto: Can I crack open my neighbors skull and feast on the goo inside yet?


Brains the feast of the dystopian generation.

/unless there are zombies. Then all bets are off.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 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 »
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