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.

(American Thinker)   Democracy is dangerous because it makes the minority think they have the same rights as the majority   (americanthinker.com) divider line 100
    More: Satire, minorities, Patrick Henry, Socialist Party USA, Communist Manifesto, democracy  
•       •       •

1363 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2013 at 11:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-21 12:08:30 PM
It's a bit more complicated that that, 'Merkin Stinker: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

That's right, we are a Lib'rul (Representative) Democracy. Booga booga!*
*As well as a Constitutional Republic.

Hur.
 
2013-06-21 12:10:48 PM

Danger Mouse: Rootus: It started out halfway reasonable, but the 'logic' in that article was in freefall for the last couple paragraphs.  Amazing.  I almost, almost thought they were going to make a rational argument.

Wow. I thought liberals would eat this article up. it basically outlines why we have a do nothing congress. Our current system has develoved from a truely representative republic into a majority rules democracy.

Oh, it came froma website you don't like, so form a circle boys....


If we had a democracy the country would be a much better place.

1) Marijuana would be legal
2) Gay marriage would be legal
3) We wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq
4) Wall Street executives would be sitting in prison

All things which were supported by the majority of the population but not the capitalist elites.
 
2013-06-21 12:12:34 PM
If people think Democracy is bad, maybe they should stay home and not vote...
 
2013-06-21 12:20:57 PM

abb3w: Xythero: Low flush toilets and energy efficient light bulbs are one of those things.

But there's absolutely nothing in the law preventing any sufficiently bootstrappy individualist from making their own porcelain 50-gallon flush tank, or learning glassblowing and a few other skills to make their own light bulbs. I really don't understand what they are whining about.


Unlike being a professional biatch, those things require thought, planning, and effort
 
2013-06-21 12:22:52 PM

Heraclitus: If people think Democracy is bad, maybe they should stay home and not vote...


No, their democracy is fine, it's mine they don't like.
 
2013-06-21 12:25:32 PM
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism" - V.I. Lenin.

/yeah yeah yeah, I am the Walrus.  Sorry to preempt your lame joke.
 
2013-06-21 12:25:57 PM

Heraclitus: If people think Democracy is bad, maybe they should stay home and not vote...


Or just try to keep people who don't agree with you from voting. Oh, right, that's exactly what the GOP is trying to do.
 
2013-06-21 12:26:21 PM
illegal.tender:

1) Marijuana would be legal

No it wouldn't.  Marijuana prohibition is still supported by a very small majority.  That will change in the next year or two.

2) Gay marriage would be legal

Only in the past maybe three years.  As it stands it will be legal in the next two years.

3) We wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq

Yes we would have.  The country went batshiat insane with bloodlust following 9/11.  We probably would have nuked the Middle East on the 12th.

4) Wall Street executives would be sitting in prison

You're joking, right?  Did you notice how easily the bankers convinced the American people that the GOVERNMENT was the real villain?  They have more than enough money to fool the woefully uneducated and small thinking American public, regardless of how the government is set up.

If we had a democracy the country would be a much better place.

I doubt that. Things would be terrible if people just did whatever seemed best to them with no filter in place.  No matter how legal weed might be.  That's the one thing this "article" got right before it descended into the depths of horseshiat.
 
2013-06-21 12:29:22 PM
today we languish under the crushing weight of an authoritarian, paternalistic socialist state

Cool!

So why am I still paying for shelter, food and healthcare?
 
2013-06-21 12:29:23 PM
by Todd Keister. Well then I guess he knows where he can stuff his article.
 
2013-06-21 12:31:42 PM

TFerWannaBe: Many "conservatives" hate conservation, and react against any legislation requiring them to stop wasting resources.


Not quite true, they like efficiency, since it saves them money, but they reflexively hate the environmental and green movements:

When the CFL bulb was priced at $1.50, and the incandescent bulb at 50 cents, politically moderate or conservative participants were less likely to buy the CFL when it had the [Protect the Environment] label. When the CFL bulb had no environmental message, liberals and conservatives chose it at "roughly the same high frequency," the summary reports.
 
2013-06-21 12:32:51 PM

ikanreed: Or are we going to forever be a species comprised of idiotic barbarians?


Is that the best part?
 
2013-06-21 12:32:56 PM

rufus-t-firefly: today we languish under the crushing weight of an authoritarian, paternalistic socialist state

Cool!

So why am I still paying for shelter, food and healthcare?


Because "socialism" in this context doesn't mean "socialism", it means "the president is a Demmycrat" or possibly "I am out of Preparation H".
 
2013-06-21 12:34:28 PM

nmrsnr: TFerWannaBe: Many "conservatives" hate conservation, and react against any legislation requiring them to stop wasting resources.

Not quite true, they like efficiency, since it saves them money, but they reflexively hate the environmental and green movements:

When the CFL bulb was priced at $1.50, and the incandescent bulb at 50 cents, politically moderate or conservative participants were less likely to buy the CFL when it had the [Protect the Environment] label. When the CFL bulb had no environmental message, liberals and conservatives chose it at "roughly the same high frequency," the summary reports.


Wow.  That is seriously retarded.
 
2013-06-21 12:35:09 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: rufus-t-firefly: today we languish under the crushing weight of an authoritarian, paternalistic socialist state

Cool!

So why am I still paying for shelter, food and healthcare?

Because "socialism" in this context doesn't mean "socialism", it means "the president is a Demmycrat" or possibly "I am out of Preparation H".


Don't try explaining what socialism or communism to a lot of people here..... they just start shouting you down about "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN" bs.
 
2013-06-21 12:38:22 PM

Lionel Mandrake: nmrsnr: TFerWannaBe: Many "conservatives" hate conservation, and react against any legislation requiring them to stop wasting resources.

Not quite true, they like efficiency, since it saves them money, but they reflexively hate the environmental and green movements:

When the CFL bulb was priced at $1.50, and the incandescent bulb at 50 cents, politically moderate or conservative participants were less likely to buy the CFL when it had the [Protect the Environment] label. When the CFL bulb had no environmental message, liberals and conservatives chose it at "roughly the same high frequency," the summary reports.

Wow.  That is seriously retarded.


Yep. They'll be the last to use Electric Vehicles, even when they become overwhelmingly better than ICE Vehicles.  Conservatives are nothing if not eager to shoot themselves in the nuts if they think that might "stick it to the libs".
 
2013-06-21 01:05:58 PM
From TFA:

With limitless powers, and with the number of representatives capped at 435, so that each member of the House now represents an absurd 700,000 citizens, we live in a democracy and not a true republic.  With such a system, millions of Americans can live their entire lives without ever having a congressman who accurately reflects their views or values.

They were doing so well.  Up until that point what they were saying was mostly true.

(Super simplified)
Democracy, rule by the people, issues are brought to a vote to be decided upon by all citizens.
Republic, rule by elected official, issues are brought to a vote to be decided upon by those representatives.

I'm at a loss for the mental gymnastics that turns "It's a republic if you have X people per elected official, but a democracy if you have Y people per elected official." Unless Y is 1 where you have an effective democracy since everyone is an elected official.
 
2013-06-21 01:06:05 PM
Tell this to the Senate republicans.
 
2013-06-21 01:30:03 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: I'm hoping for the inbreeding to really take hold in the next few years, and in 30-50 years they should be reduced to that family in X-Files (you KNOW the one I mean, I'm not GISing it at work).


The only episode of that show I will never watch again.  Just thinking about gives me the dry heaves.
 
2013-06-21 02:12:59 PM

Johnny_Whistle: Satan's Bunny Slippers: I'm hoping for the inbreeding to really take hold in the next few years, and in 30-50 years they should be reduced to that family in X-Files (you KNOW the one I mean, I'm not GISing it at work).

The only episode of that show I will never watch again.  Just thinking about gives me the dry heaves.


AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-MEN!
 
2013-06-21 02:14:14 PM

Lionel Mandrake: nmrsnr: TFerWannaBe: Many "conservatives" hate conservation, and react against any legislation requiring them to stop wasting resources.

Not quite true, they like efficiency, since it saves them money, but they reflexively hate the environmental and green movements:

When the CFL bulb was priced at $1.50, and the incandescent bulb at 50 cents, politically moderate or conservative participants were less likely to buy the CFL when it had the [Protect the Environment] label. When the CFL bulb had no environmental message, liberals and conservatives chose it at "roughly the same high frequency," the summary reports.

Wow.  That is seriously retarded.


When you think about it, that's kind of the definition of modern republicans.  They take their derp seriously.
 
2013-06-21 02:17:33 PM

NkThrasher: From TFA:

With limitless powers, and with the number of representatives capped at 435, so that each member of the House now represents an absurd 700,000 citizens, we live in a democracy and not a true republic.  With such a system, millions of Americans can live their entire lives without ever having a congressman who accurately reflects their views or values.

They were doing so well.  Up until that point what they were saying was mostly true.

(Super simplified)
Democracy, rule by the people, issues are brought to a vote to be decided upon by all citizens.
Republic, rule by elected official, issues are brought to a vote to be decided upon by those representatives.

I'm at a loss for the mental gymnastics that turns "It's a republic if you have X people per elected official, but a democracy if you have Y people per elected official." Unless Y is 1 where you have an effective democracy since everyone is an elected official.


Worse than that... their gymnastics they used were that when the X/Y goes up, it gets closer to being a "Democracy", when, as you pointed out, it actually makes it even more strongly a Republic.

Of course, the fact that "Republic" and "Democracy" are so close to our polarized U.S. political party names now that the low/dim minded individuals can't tell the difference.   "Democracy?  That sounds Democratic... must be bad!..... even though it is the thing that I'd rather we move towards".
 
2013-06-21 02:36:25 PM
It does bring up n interesting point though (although as stated, they made the wrong argument).... why do we tie our representation to a strict # (435) with a growing population?    The Senate already ties itself down in both size per state and growth (always 2 officials per state, no changes ever to that).... it seems like that the House should be tied by neither, but, they still tie down the total number of representatives despite the countries growth.   The determination there should be,  pick what we feel the number of citizens/representative should be, and grow the body based on that.

They "capped" the # at 435 in 1911.   Our U.S. population then was 92 million, or 211k citizens per represenative .  It is now 313.9 million.   Which means, we should have close to 1,500 representatives, instead of as pointed out, now a representative representing 700k people on average.   Granted, once you get over even probably around 50k people being represented per official, how much that makes a difference is probably pretty low.  And I understand one to make the "You think gerrymandering is bad now" argument, but, that is a different issue from just whether the size of the house should be growing.

I can also understand people saying "You want to add MORE politicians?", and, it does sound like an insane point, but, if that is the point, we want "less government", then, should we go to 1 house rep per 1.5 million people then, or 3 million (we are growing towards that as it is, but, just saying, why not get to it right now, and reduce the house to 250 people)?  Or, why not just make two senates?   At least in my thinking, your individual "elected official" influence (however small it ever was) shouldn't diminish over time because of the growth of the country.
 
2013-06-21 02:39:29 PM
Wait - he says we're in a republic because the mob elects some representatives to narrow the number of people voting.  That's a republic.  Unless, of course, it's TOO narrow, in which case, it's a Democracy again?

What?

Democracy: 350,000,000 voters on an issue
Republic: 3,500 voters on an issue
Democracy: 435 voters on an issue

Huh?
 
2013-06-21 03:05:04 PM

dletter: It does bring up n interesting point though (although as stated, they made the wrong argument).... why do we tie our representation to a strict # (435) with a growing population?    The Senate already ties itself down in both size per state and growth (always 2 officials per state, no changes ever to that).... it seems like that the House should be tied by neither, but, they still tie down the total number of representatives despite the countries growth.   The determination there should be,  pick what we feel the number of citizens/representative should be, and grow the body based on that.

They "capped" the # at 435 in 1911.   Our U.S. population then was 92 million, or 211k citizens per represenative .  It is now 313.9 million.   Which means, we should have close to 1,500 representatives, instead of as pointed out, now a representative representing 700k people on average.   Granted, once you get over even probably around 50k people being represented per official, how much that makes a difference is probably pretty low.  And I understand one to make the "You think gerrymandering is bad now" argument, but, that is a different issue from just whether the size of the house should be growing.

I can also understand people saying "You want to add MORE politicians?", and, it does sound like an insane point, but, if that is the point, we want "less government", then, should we go to 1 house rep per 1.5 million people then, or 3 million (we are growing towards that as it is, but, just saying, why not get to it right now, and reduce the house to 250 people)?  Or, why not just make two senates?   At least in my thinking, your individual "elected official" influence (however small it ever was) shouldn't diminish over time because of the growth of the country.


Actually the "cap" came in the reapportionment act of 1929. It's the result of  a compromise to end nearly a decade of political fighting over apportionment.

The Census of 1920  revealed a landmark change in the political landscape. People living in cities outnumbered the rural population. Urban voters tended to vote strongly Democratic. This was bad for the Republicans. who at the time controlled both house of Congress, and the Presidency. So they refused to reapportion representation based on the 1920 census for years. Finally, in 1929 a deal was struck, and part of the compromise resulted in fixing the number of Congressional Districts at 435.
 
2013-06-21 03:12:18 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: dletter: It does bring up n interesting point though (although as stated, they made the wrong argument).... why do we tie our representation to a strict # (435) with a growing population?    The Senate already ties itself down in both size per state and growth (always 2 officials per state, no changes ever to that).... it seems like that the House should be tied by neither, but, they still tie down the total number of representatives despite the countries growth.   The determination there should be,  pick what we feel the number of citizens/representative should be, and grow the body based on that.

They "capped" the # at 435 in 1911.   Our U.S. population then was 92 million, or 211k citizens per represenative .  It is now 313.9 million.   Which means, we should have close to 1,500 representatives, instead of as pointed out, now a representative representing 700k people on average.   Granted, once you get over even probably around 50k people being represented per official, how much that makes a difference is probably pretty low.  And I understand one to make the "You think gerrymandering is bad now" argument, but, that is a different issue from just whether the size of the house should be growing.

I can also understand people saying "You want to add MORE politicians?", and, it does sound like an insane point, but, if that is the point, we want "less government", then, should we go to 1 house rep per 1.5 million people then, or 3 million (we are growing towards that as it is, but, just saying, why not get to it right now, and reduce the house to 250 people)?  Or, why not just make two senates?   At least in my thinking, your individual "elected official" influence (however small it ever was) shouldn't diminish over time because of the growth of the country.

Actually the "cap" came in the reapportionment act of 1929. It's the result of  a compromise to end nearly a decade of political fighting over apportionment.

The Census of 1920  revealed a landmark change in t ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apportionment_Act_of_1911

This seems to disagree, while the article gives the background of the things you discussed, the original cap did happen in 1911 (well, passed in 11, effective in 1913).
 
2013-06-21 03:17:42 PM

dletter: Philip Francis Queeg: dletter: It does bring up n interesting point though (although as stated, they made the wrong argument).... why do we tie our representation to a strict # (435) with a growing population?    The Senate already ties itself down in both size per state and growth (always 2 officials per state, no changes ever to that).... it seems like that the House should be tied by neither, but, they still tie down the total number of representatives despite the countries growth.   The determination there should be,  pick what we feel the number of citizens/representative should be, and grow the body based on that.

They "capped" the # at 435 in 1911.   Our U.S. population then was 92 million, or 211k citizens per represenative .  It is now 313.9 million.   Which means, we should have close to 1,500 representatives, instead of as pointed out, now a representative representing 700k people on average.   Granted, once you get over even probably around 50k people being represented per official, how much that makes a difference is probably pretty low.  And I understand one to make the "You think gerrymandering is bad now" argument, but, that is a different issue from just whether the size of the house should be growing.

I can also understand people saying "You want to add MORE politicians?", and, it does sound like an insane point, but, if that is the point, we want "less government", then, should we go to 1 house rep per 1.5 million people then, or 3 million (we are growing towards that as it is, but, just saying, why not get to it right now, and reduce the house to 250 people)?  Or, why not just make two senates?   At least in my thinking, your individual "elected official" influence (however small it ever was) shouldn't diminish over time because of the growth of the country.

Actually the "cap" came in the reapportionment act of 1929. It's the result of  a compromise to end nearly a decade of political fighting over apportionment.

The Census of 1920  revealed ...


The 1929 agreement maintained the same number of seats as had been apportioned by the normal method in 1911. If the normal method had been used based on the 1920 Census, the house would have increased to 483 members.
 
2013-06-21 03:21:00 PM

Hollie Maea: A friend of mine was making this argument with me yesterday on Facebook.  His point was that gays can go to hell because they only constitute a few percent of the population, so fark them.


look how well it has worked for .... well hitler, islamic nutty countries, china, russia, nk, ...
well all countries which suppress minorities

it is amazing that we have gotten as far as we have given how hard half the country fights to continue repressing rights.
 
2013-06-21 03:25:43 PM

dletter: They "capped" the # at 435 in 1911.   Our U.S. population then was 92 million, or 211k citizens per represenative .  It is now 313.9 million.   Which means, we should have close to 1,500 representatives, instead of as pointed out, now a representative representing 700k people on average.   Granted, once you get over even probably around 50k people being represented per official, how much that makes a difference is probably pretty low.  And I understand one to make the "You think gerrymandering is bad now" argument, but, that is a different issue from just whether the size of the house should be growing.


go back a bit further and you get an even larger house
which would go a long way to fixing some of the problems.
1) they would have to vote electronically
2) might as well keep them at home in their home district
3) why would you make their districts geographic?
4) have the top N vote getters for each state become the rep, regardless of where they live
(this would fix a TON of the current gerrymandering and underrepresented problem we have today
 
2013-06-21 03:56:36 PM
"Satire" or not, some people really have a problem with this.
 
2013-06-21 04:15:09 PM

namatad: dletter: They "capped" the # at 435 in 1911.   Our U.S. population then was 92 million, or 211k citizens per represenative .  It is now 313.9 million.   Which means, we should have close to 1,500 representatives, instead of as pointed out, now a representative representing 700k people on average.   Granted, once you get over even probably around 50k people being represented per official, how much that makes a difference is probably pretty low.  And I understand one to make the "You think gerrymandering is bad now" argument, but, that is a different issue from just whether the size of the house should be growing.

go back a bit further and you get an even larger house
which would go a long way to fixing some of the problems.
1) they would have to vote electronically
2) might as well keep them at home in their home district
3) why would you make their districts geographic?
4) have the top N vote getters for each state become the rep, regardless of where they live
(this would fix a TON of the current gerrymandering and underrepresented problem we have today


I am not sure I am understanding that point.... so, you want the house to just be a much larger "senate" (ie, 200 representatives for California, but, none of them tied to any specific area of california)?

I guess my answer to that is, that, the point of more representatives is to get a specific person even closer to a small/clustered group of people to represent, not just make it 150 people representing 47 million instead of 2.   If we actually got down to 50-100k people per representative, the size of the areas would be so much smaller that gerrymandering would become so obnoxious it would not be feasible... and you could just base them around various 'cluster' spots and go out geographically 360 degrees from those points.

Of course, the ones who have all the power to do that don't want to do that, so, it will never really happen.
 
2013-06-21 07:29:07 PM
Democracy is dangerous because it convinces the kind of clown who writes articles for the American Potato that his ignorance is just as good as knowledge- better, even. Knowledge is of the devil.
 
2013-06-21 07:44:11 PM

Diogenes: Hollie Maea: A friend of mine was making this argument with me yesterday on Facebook.  His point was that gays can go to hell because they only constitute a few percent of the population, so fark them.

Spoken like someone who has always enjoyed the privileges of the majority without earning or deserving them.


Why should I have to earn or deserve my natural rights?  These privileges of which you speak are mine by right of birth.  And don't tell me it's unfair that I was lucky enough to be born straight, male and white  Random selection is inherently fair, free of bias or manipulation by anyone prejudiced for or against me.
 
2013-06-21 08:22:54 PM

dletter: I am not sure I am understanding that point.... so, you want the house to just be a much larger "senate" (ie, 200 representatives for California, but, none of them tied to any specific area of california)?


The question is: Who represents ME? Or as importantly, my cohort?
I dont know enough about CA, but how about Illinois.

The population:
50% are women
15% are black
5% are asian
30% bachelor or higher
16% hispanic
2012 election 57% democrat

The representatives(18 total):
4 female - 22% - underrepresented
1 hispanic - 5% - underrepresented
3 black - 16% - not bad
1 asian - 5% - not bad
14 male - 78% - lol
12 dems - 67% - over represented

In the end, NONE of these people could ever represent me. We pick our representative geographically only because we have always done it that way. I would be much better served by a representative at large who represented my political and social leanings, rather than someone who lives close to me.

Gerrymandering has been used to create hispanic and black districts in Illinois (along with safe districts for the incumbent white guy.) If all reps were at large, gerrymandering would cease to be an issue. I would certainly change the nature of elections. It would actually be useful to vote for my rep in illinois, with the hope that I would be counted.

Increasing the number of reps nationwide, would give smaller and smaller groups an actual say in their government.

/Of course, none of this matters. The 435 would die before letting any of these changes happen.

/yes, we know, it is POSSIBLE that an old straight white guy could properly represent a gay black women, but it is rare.
 
2013-06-21 09:35:40 PM

theknuckler_33: *click*

*reads first 7 paragraphs*

Hmm, this is remarkably coherent...

*reads 8th paragraphs*

whoop... back up.

*reads the rest*

FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!


came here to say this

/this
 
2013-06-21 11:11:43 PM

johnryan51: The wolves have voted, and we are being served for dinner. Wonder who the wolves. are?


Skinnyhead waited. The lights above him blinked and sparked out of the air. There were liberals in the board. He didn't see them, but had expected them now for years. His warnings to Cernel Joson were not listenend to and now it was too late. Far too late for now, anyway.
Skinnyhead was a derper for fourteen years. When he was young he watched the internets and he said to dad "I want to be on the message boards daddy."
Dad said "No! You will BE TROLL BYLIBS"
There was a time when he believed him. Then as he got oldered he stopped. But now in the forum base of theFark he knew there were liberals.
"This is Joson" the radio crackered. "You must fight the libs!"
So Skinnyhead gotted his comupter keyboard and spamed the party line.
"HEGOING TODERP US" said the libs
"I will shoot at him" said the cyberbully and he fired the flame posts. Skinnyhead derped at him and tried to make him facepalm. But then the interwebs lagged and they were trapped and not able to post.
"No! I must kill the liberals" he shouted
The radio said "No, Skinnyhead. You are the liberals"
And then Skinnyhead was a wolf.
 
2013-06-21 11:23:57 PM

Kiler: Good thing the US isn't a Democracy.


My representatives are voted into office.

Are you in a different US? How do they pick yours?
Round-robin double elimination gin rummy competition?
 
m00
2013-06-22 01:08:41 AM

illegal.tender: If we had a democracy the country would be a much better place.

1) Marijuana would be legal
2) Gay marriage would be legal
3) We wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq
4) Wall Street executives would be sitting in prison

All things which were supported by the majority of the population but not the capitalist elites.


you realize if we had a democracy, the results of all elections would be the same as they ar enow. the problem is the elites rig the elections in any system.
 
2013-06-22 01:35:01 AM

Xythero: America's federal government long ago shed the chains of the Constitution, and today, it possesses the power to dictate the amount of toilet water we can flush, what type of light bulb we use to light our homes, how we can use our land, and how much of our income we are permitted to keep. Moreover, our government has now cloaked itself with the power to decide whether we will be permitted to receive life-saving medical care.

I remember "This American Life" did a show on the Red State/Blue State divide.  One of the things they mentioned is that not only does each side disagree on the answers to problems, they can't even agree on what constitutes a problem in the first place.  Whole scandals erupt on one side that the other is completely unaware of.  Low flush toilets and energy efficient light bulbs are one of those things.  They are things I don't even think about, but the Right is completely scandalized by.


A very good friend of mine whom I love dearly is as right wing derp as they come. He likes to try to goad me into debating him on the hot button topics of the moment but I abstain because he can dish out falsehoods but he can't take truths. Anyway, the light in his dining room has been out for over a year now but he refuses to replace it because the government is making him use CFLs and dammit he won't let that Kenyan Muslim Socialist tell HIM what light bulbs he can use because 'MURIKA!

At least he shuts up when football is on...
 
2013-06-22 11:15:30 AM
the Will of the Wealthy Minority is what counts in America now.  its been working so well.....................


more Stench from the Reich Wing American Stinker.
 
2013-06-22 11:16:43 AM

johnryan51: The wolves have voted, and we are being served for dinner. Wonder who the wolves. are?



the Richest 2%. who own 80% of this Fading Democratic Republic's total wealth.

ain't Freedom great!
 
2013-06-22 11:17:48 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Diogenes: Call me crazy, but I get the feeling that these nuts never read The Federalist Papers.

I don't need some liberal mainstream msm media telling me what the Founders of this country believed.



American Stinker is Reich Wing.
 
2013-06-22 11:20:37 AM

Kiler: Good thing the US isn't a Democracy.


not by a mile.  we are a hybrid Fascist/Plutocratic State.   ain't Freedom great!
 
2013-06-22 11:22:46 AM

Rev. Skarekroe: Hollie Maea: A friend of mine was making this argument with me yesterday on Facebook.  His point was that gays can go to hell because they only constitute a few percent of the population, so fark them.

Well, that's what Jesus would say.



Jesus was a Real cut throat no doubt.  lol    and so Conservative too!
 
2013-06-22 01:44:33 PM

abb3w: But there's absolutely nothing in the law preventing any sufficiently bootstrappy individualist from making their own porcelain 50-gallon flush tank, or learning glassblowing and a few other skills to make their own light bulbs. I really don't understand what they are whining about.


I would seriously like to see and hear a toilet that used a 50-gallon flush tank, just for the lulz. It would transcend mere sanitation and become architecture, like a fountain or a waterfall.
 
2013-06-22 01:50:01 PM

johnryan51: The wolves have voted, and we are being served for dinner. Wonder who the wolves. are?


Democracy isn't four wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It's one wolf and four sheep, only the wolf has convinced two of the sheep that if they don't vote for mutton, they'll miss out on the opportunity to become wolves themselves.
 
2013-06-22 02:00:38 PM
Um....has anyone done a logical fallacy analysis on the farticle yet?

I'm just curious.
 
2013-06-22 07:37:00 PM
JamesPiekko1

Then we need to do something about those who do not stay true to the cause. There may be something to having labor camps for the leftists to pay back what they owe us, and give them a chance for release after a few years once their debts to us our settled, and they promise to come to our side. I know you may think that prison is the answer but they already have it way too good in there and this will do nothign to discourage leftists views.


Nightfallz

There are leftists in the Republican party as well. They walk like republicans...squawk like republicans...but vote like the socialist-traitors they are.


Um....wow.

And that's just a tiny smash n grab sample of the comments.
 
2013-06-22 07:55:11 PM

Kittypie070: Um....has anyone done a logical fallacy analysis on the farticle yet?

I'm just curious.


 For example this paragraph?
With limitless powers, and with the number of representatives capped at 435, so that each member of the House now represents an absurd 700,000 citizens, we live in a democracy and not a true republic.  With such a system, millions of Americans can live their entire lives without ever having a congressman who accurately reflects their views or values.It makes me feel better that this guy was a Navy intelligence specialist?
 
2013-06-22 08:07:00 PM

minuslars: Kittypie070: Um....has anyone done a logical fallacy analysis on the farticle yet?

I'm just curious.


 For example this paragraph?
With limitless powers, and with the number of representatives capped at 435, so that each member of the House now represents an absurd 700,000 citizens, we live in a democracy and not a true republic.  With such a system, millions of Americans can live their entire lives without ever having a congressman who accurately reflects their views or values.
It makes me feel better that this guy was a Navy intelligence specialist?


OK, this...half-off-his-nut fellow just told us that the federal government is Superman.
I mean...if Deadbart could fiddlyquote and never be called on it except by THE ENEMY, so can I.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report