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.

(Townhall)   UNC Student Committee: So OK for the 2013-2014 academic year every single student group will get full funding except for the college republicans, they get a 75% cut. We can't have diversity of thought on campus   (townhall.com) divider line 214
    More: Asinine, student committees, tax cuts, student groups, anarchist groups, political radicalism, Finance Committee, diversity, students  
•       •       •

2191 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Aug 2013 at 4:56 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-31 05:32:40 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Debeo Summa Credo (farkied: Koch sucker): Liberals love to increase spending but they NEVER want to pay for it.

George w. bush was a liberal?

[imageshack.us image 640x823]


And Ronald Reagan.
 
2013-08-31 05:42:17 PM  

A Terrible Human: HighOnCraic: Thanks! I generally vote for Green Party candidates at the local level, but seriously, the "both sides are the same" meme is usually pushed by right-wing concern trolls. The Democrats have moved to the right, going back to Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Committee, but they haven't become exactly like the Republicans on a number of issues.

I'm rather insulted that you called me right wing,trolling maybe but me being a Republican? Not in this farking lifetime or the next.


Wow, a genuine concerned Fark Independent!  How rare!
 
2013-08-31 07:23:54 PM  

dangelder:

GeneralJim: Yes, it's on purpose.  It's easy.   To color text, use the following HTML command: <font color="#xxxxxx"> where xxxxxx is a number you get from the HTML color codes and names chart.  All of the fancy stuff you start with "font" statements like that are turned off with </font>.

For myself, I put the code in the buffer, and CONTROL-V paste it in wherever I need it.  I'm too lazy to research if there's an easy way to load some softkeys with it on my system...


Thanks, it's good of you to explain how it's done. Now would you mind telling me why?

No, not at all.  I started doing it during the Iranian uprising a couple years ago.  If there was ever a time FOR American intervention it was to help free the Iranian people from their horrid theocracy -- but we did nothing.  Iranians, especially younger ones, are very pro-Western, and especially pro-American.  When I was in university housing, I lived with mostly Iranian students, and they were the nicest group of people I've ever seen.  I'm keeping my text green until the Iranian people are free of the current theocracy.
 
2013-08-31 07:25:02 PM  

HighOnCraic: A Terrible Human: HighOnCraic: Thanks! I generally vote for Green Party candidates at the local level, but seriously, the "both sides are the same" meme is usually pushed by right-wing concern trolls. The Democrats have moved to the right, going back to Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Committee, but they haven't become exactly like the Republicans on a number of issues.

I'm rather insulted that you called me right wing,trolling maybe but me being a Republican? Not in this farking lifetime or the next.

Wow, a genuine concerned Fark Independent!  How rare!


Dude I'm a registered Democrat? I farking voted for Obama twice,vote against the asshole Republicans in my state every chance I get to but don't tell me that both sides aren't eating out of the same farking hand. They are! All the pigs are being slopped in the same trough.
 
2013-08-31 07:27:14 PM  

thiefofdreams:

It highlights his text, most I know favorite in green. It is a ploy to make his posts stand out.

AWs do this a lot on other forums.
Any time I need advice on what it is that I'm thinking, I know just who to call on...
 
2013-08-31 08:41:51 PM  

LordJiro:

GeneralJim: So, you prefer intolerance put into action, as compared with intolerance claimed for others? So, you like to claim Republicans are racists, but ignore the fact that Democrats founded the KKK and the Jim Crow laws, right?

Southern Democrats/'Dixiecrats'.. Y'know, the group now known as "The Republican base", thanks to the Southern Strategy.

So, you're claiming that the Democrats are NOT the ones who have put welfare policies which destroy families in place?  Was it not the Democrats who have been arranging so that every fatherless child born to a welfare family, likely headed by an unmarried woman, generates more welfare income?  Under the tender social mercies of the Democrats, hasn't the "out-of-wedlock birth rate" gone from 24% in 1965, just after LBJ's "Great Society" program, to 73% today.  Or is it that you deny the link between fatherless families and poverty, despite the fact that this is the closest correlation of any factor of poverty?

You're also ignoring the fact that the largest racist institution in America is the welfare system, founded on the racist belief that those "poor blacks" can't take care of themselves, and need a bureaucracy headed by whites to provide for them.  Also, keeping blacks on welfare guarantees a continuous black Democratic voting block; since they are dependent upon the welfare state, they are unlikely to vote against it.

And, finally, note that "liberals" reserve the nastiest, white-hot fires of their condemnation for conservative blacks.  If a black should suggest that black families would be better off as actual families than as families headed by unmarried women; or that blacks would be better off with jobs than with welfare; or that Democrats are not serving the real interests of the black community; THAT'S when you see the full range of leftist rage.  While I do NOT agree with it, I can certainly understand the process.  After investing so much in making a dependent black community, you have a feeling of ownership.  And, you don't see the irony of that.

 
2013-08-31 08:47:44 PM  

HighOnCraic:

When asked about the strategy of using race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once-Democratic South, Mehlman replied, "Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

And, because Democrats deny their race-pandering crap that has crippled blacks in this country, and Republicans admit past mistakes...  vote Democrat?
 
2013-08-31 08:52:18 PM  

HoleChicken:

Interesting. When I was in college (2002-2006), I was involved in both the student government association and a political group. Political groups were not allowed to receive funding of any kind from the school. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians...they had to raise their own funds. It was a private school, too.
A reasonable approach.  There is an inherent problem with a politically funded institution giving money to political groups...  Although I suppose as a university, it IS good training for the real world of corruption...
 
2013-08-31 09:56:36 PM  

GeneralJim: Republicans admit past mistakes


"I don't remember."

"I can't recall."
 
2013-08-31 09:58:56 PM  

GeneralJim: HighOnCraic: When asked about the strategy of using race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once-Democratic South, Mehlman replied, "Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
And, because Democrats deny their race-pandering crap that has crippled blacks in this country, and Republicans admit past mistakes...  vote Democrat?


Oddly enough, even though Mehlman tried to apologize, he was denounced by Rush Limbaugh for mentioning the Southern Strategy.  Lots of people skip over that part of history and look back to the 1800s.

Too many Republicans are in denial about the way they pandered to Negrophobic voters in the South is hurting their party.

They've definitely dialed it back a bit, much to the dismay of the far-right fringe.

"In fact, the National Review of the 1950s, 60s and even 70s spoke up for white people far more vigorously than Pat Buchanan would ever dare to today. The early National Review heaped criticism on the civil rights movement, Brown v. Board of Education, and people like Adam Clayton Powell and Martin Luther King, whom it considered race hustlers. Some of the greatest names in American conservatism - Russell Kirk, Willmore Kendall, James Kilpatrick, Richard Weaver, and a young Bill Buckley - wrote articles defending the white South and white South Africans in the days of segregation and apartheid. NR attacked the 1965 immigration bill that opened America up to Third-World immigration, and wrote frankly about racial differences in IQ. There were always hints of compromise, but passages from some back issues could have been lifted right out of American Renaissance. Not so today."

http://www.amren.com/news/2012/04/the-decline-of-national-review/

Race pandering helped Republicans achieve the biggest political realignment of the 20th Century by winning over white Southern voters who were angry about the Federal intervention that ended Jim Crow laws.  You seem to remember who started it; do you remember how it ended?
 
2013-09-01 12:19:08 AM  

yeegrek: Republicans are the only people who can punch shoot you in the face and demand an apology for your nose hurting their fist bullet/shot.


FTFY
 
2013-09-01 12:38:44 AM  

HighOnCraic:

You seem to remember who started it; do you remember how it ended?

Yep.  And it wasn't a single incident.  It started with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and, IIRC, the last of the Jim Crow laws went away with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

It wasn't smooth... a couple years into it, the Democratic Arkansas governor called out the National Guard to prevent blacks from enrolling at Little Rock Central.  Republican President Eisenhower responded by sending in an airborne division, and federalizing the Arkansas National Guard.  Somewhat later, in 1963, Democratic Governor George Wallace of Alabama also tried to block the enrollment of two black students to U of A, but was dissuaded by the National Guard, again under Presidential direction of JFK, a Democrat.

 
2013-09-01 01:13:22 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: TuteTibiImperes: DrPainMD: TuteTibiImperes: Debeo Summa Credo: SenorBenedict: Corvus: What's funny, is my Republican friends are also the first one who cry about lack of government services (at least for them). I had one friend biatching that they should increase hours on trolly lines until 2 am. When I had explained to him that they are cutting funding for things like schools and he is against any tax increases and ask him how would they pay for it, he did the ol' "That's just a ploy, they have lots of money they are just cutting it from important things to get back at us".

I hear that shiat all the time from my conservative family members. Its farking mystifying to them that voting down tax increases and biatching about government spending can actually cut government spending.

On the other hand, i always observe liberals asking for more spending and whining about how terrible it is when spending is cut. But ask them to chip in a little bit by funding it with a VAT or sales tax increase and you are almost always met with indignation.

Apparently the programs aren't really that important if we aren't willing to pay for them!

Because VAT and Sales taxes are regressive.  I'd be fine with a larger income tax though, even if it meant I pay more myself.

Then overpay. The IRS will gladly take your money.

That's one of the most boneheaded arguments out there.  I'm willing to do my part, but the tax burden on the working and middle class is felt much more than it is by the extremely wealthy.  We need everyone to pay in to get things done, and I want the 1%s to feel it like everyone else.

Really? The tax code is plenty progressive as it is. Top 1% makes 16% of income but pays 36% of taxes or something like that.

Liberals love to increase spending but they NEVER want to pay for it. It demonstrates that the spending they want isnt really that important. If its not worth paying a VAT for, then I'm sorry but it undermines the argument that we need the spending in the first place.


The top 1% pay a greater % of tax revenue because they make so much more than everyone else.

Your inability to understand basic math suggests to me that you are not in the top 1%, so why are you defending them?
 
2013-09-01 01:22:29 AM  

GeneralJim: HighOnCraic: You seem to remember who started it; do you remember how it ended?
Yep.  And it wasn't a single incident.  It started with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and, IIRC, the last of the Jim Crow laws went away with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
It wasn't smooth... a couple years into it, the Democratic Arkansas governor called out the National Guard to prevent blacks from enrolling at Little Rock Central.  Republican President Eisenhower responded by sending in an airborne division, and federalizing the Arkansas National Guard.  Somewhat later, in 1963, Democratic Governor George Wallace of Alabama also tried to block the enrollment of two black students to U of A, but was dissuaded by the National Guard, again under Presidential direction of JFK, a Democrat.


So you get my point that is was ended by Federal action?  That's great!

See, that's the problem Republicans have with the civil rights movement.  They started out on the right side; Lincoln used Federal power to end slavery, and as you said, Eisenhower used Federal troops in Arkansas.  But the conservatives who took over the party in late 50s/early 60s (see my earlier post about the National Review) were against the use of Federal power to end segregation, and they drafted Goldwater to lead the party.  You can read "The Conscience of a Conservative" to get his thoughts on the Brown decision--he was just as strongly against it as the Southern Democrats who wrote the "Southern Manifesto," and he used the same argument against it in his chapter on civil rights.

Now, which party is currently defined by their opposition to Federal power and their desire to return power to the states?

I'll give you a hint:

BUCHANAN: Well, I agree, I mean, I'll tell you why many African- Americans vote Democratic is because, you know, the federal government stopped, ended slavery, it ended segregation, it supported civil rights, supports affirmative action. But the Feds did that and they tend to believe in the federal government as a good, powerful positive institution, it's on our side. And Hannity and Buchanan and these guys are constantly knocking it, and that's why we are against them. So, that's an understandable position.

http://www.hannity.com/article/pat-buchanan-s-controversial-suicide- of -a-superpower/14486

It's funny that you mentioned George Wallace.  If you read Kevin Phillips' "The Emerging Republican Majority, he argues that Wallace's third-party run in '68 would eventually lead disaffected Southern white Democrats into the Republican Party, and that's exactly what happened.  Buchanan, back when he was working for Nixon, even wrote a strategy memo entitled "Dividing the Democrats," which was all about how to encourage the Wallace Democrats to join the GOP.

It's great that you think the Brown decision was a good thing.  The problem is, conservatives at the time thought it was a very bad thing:

The September 28, 1957 issue contained a piece by James Kilpatrick called "Right and Power in Arkansas," in which he endorsed Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus' call-up of the National Guard to prevent forced integration at Little Rock's Central High School. Defending a community's right to keep the peace, he wrote that "the State of Arkansas and Orval Faubus are wholly in the right; they have acted lawfully; they are entitled to those great presumptions of the law which underlie the whole of our judicial tradition." Predicting a "storm" of white resistance he wrote, "Conceding, for the sake of discussion, that the Negro pupil has these new rights, what of the white community?  Has it none?"
An unsigned editorial in the September 21, 1957, issue put the blame for the whole incident squarely on the Supreme Court:
"Under the disintegrating effects of  Brown v. Board of Education, the units of our society are forced into absolute dilemmas for which there is literally no solution within the traditional American structure."Violence and the threat of violence; base emotions; the cynical exploitation of members of both races by ruthless ideologues; the shameful spectacle of heavily armed troops patrolling the lawns and schoolyards of once tranquil towns and villages; the turgid dregs of hatred, envy, resentment, and sorrow - all these are part of the swelling harvest ofBrown v. Board of Education."
On the tenth anniversary of  Brown, NR offered this June 2, 1964, editorial:
"But whatever the exact net result in the restricted field of school desegregation, what a price we are paying for Brown! It would be ridiculous to hold the Supreme Court solely to blame for the ludicrously named 'civil rights movement' - that is, the Negro revolt ... But the Court carries its share of the blame. Its decrees, beginning with  Brown, have on the one hand encouraged the least responsible of the Negro leaders in the course of extra-legal and illegal struggle that we now witness around us..."Brown, as  National Review declared many years ago, was bad law and bad sociology. We are now tasting its bitter fruits. Race relations in the country are ten times worse than in 1954."
 The modern GOP was built on opposition to civil rights.
 
Displayed 14 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report