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.

(The New Yorker)   While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured   (newyorker.com) divider line 415
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Americans, Medi-Cal, insurance agents  
•       •       •

2338 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 10:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-20 03:10:14 PM  

cman: FarkedOver: Rwa2play: jigger: cman: They all started out with good intentions

I'm not so sure about that.

Yeah Pol Pot's "regime" had nothing but bad intentions from the outset.

Good thing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam actually intervened and removed the Khmer Rogue from Cambodia.

North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.


How civilized, at least compared to free market Iraq.
 
2013-11-20 03:11:19 PM  

cman: LordJiro: cman: FarkedOver: cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.

How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?

Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot

Yeah, pure capitalist societies tend to let other things do the killing for them. Like preventable disease, starvation, desperation, and so on.
And I hope you count America as an authoritarian police state. Sure, we aren't the genocidal type, but that's because we prefer to lock people up in staggering numbers instead. After all, if you just outright kill them, you can't profit off of them. And that's not even getting into the domestic spying, the militarization of the police, the tendency to let cops do whatever the fark they please while getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist...

I agree.

We have no problems letting other people die.

We don't care.

Indifference happens in capitalism

It also happens in a barter economy, too.


It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the poor so the country isn't drained completely dry.
 
2013-11-20 03:12:15 PM  

Egoy3k: someonelse: The bolded part is kinda why we need unions.

Bullshiat. As a manager if I knowingly create an unsafe condition where one of my employees gets hurt or dies I got to jail and my company is fined.  If I knowingly ignore an unsafe condition that might hurt somebody I can be personally fined and my company will also be fined.  if I refuse to hire someone based on their sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or failing a pre-employment drug screening (yup if drug use is consistent with addiction that is now a disability and as an employer I am obliged to accommodate the disability if possible) They can sue my company and put me in front of a human rights tribunal that can fine me personally.  Just last year (not at my company) a man carved the names of three black employees into bananas and left them in the locker room to be discovered.  His employer, as i would, fired him on the spot.  The employer was subsequently sued and forced to re-hire this man.  Workers have no need of extra protection above and beyond what the government already gives them.


That's fine, if you believe that workers are entitled to no leverage with management beyond the right not to be killed or injured through negligence.
 
2013-11-20 03:12:40 PM  

cman: North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.


Now let's not start on something that (in retrospect) the US would've been better off leaving alone.

I always call those that fought in Vietnam "The Lost Generation".  This country lost them to stupid-ass politics that really wouldn't have moved the needle either way.
 
2013-11-20 03:13:46 PM  

LordJiro: cman: LordJiro: cman: FarkedOver: cman: 22 million Russians (not counting Soviets killed by Nazis or during the Great Terror) would have a talk with you on why Communism is terrible.

Every country that has tried Communism has turned into an authoritarian police state.

Every single one of them

They all started out with good intentions, then misery and death happened on a scale that makes robber barons look like angels.

How many people have died as a direct result of capitalism?

Dunno

Unlike Communism, they don't tend to put people in pits and fill them with holes, then fill out a card stating how many people they shot

Yeah, pure capitalist societies tend to let other things do the killing for them. Like preventable disease, starvation, desperation, and so on.
And I hope you count America as an authoritarian police state. Sure, we aren't the genocidal type, but that's because we prefer to lock people up in staggering numbers instead. After all, if you just outright kill them, you can't profit off of them. And that's not even getting into the domestic spying, the militarization of the police, the tendency to let cops do whatever the fark they please while getting nothing more than a slap on the wrist...

I agree.

We have no problems letting other people die.

We don't care.

Indifference happens in capitalism

It also happens in a barter economy, too.

It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the po ...


You think that Democrats don't have big business interests at heart? So that whole deregulation thing that Clinton pushed through and which many Liberals supported never happened? Aww, isn't this cute?

/Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter as they are not beholden to us
 
2013-11-20 03:15:50 PM  

Garet Garrett: Serious Black: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

When was the last time you studied actuarial science?

See, I don't have to, because the Obama administration and their lackeys did it for me, even as they spin failure as an unlikely consequence (displaying a faith that would make Cubs fans uncomfortable).

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/everything-you-n ee d-to-know-about-obamacare-and-death-spirals/281315/


"Feldstein fears that a simple cost-benefit analysis will tell too many young people to pay the fine and forgo insurance until they absolutely need it. Is he right? Probably not. Feldstein might be right that a rational self-maximizer would calculate that the fine is a better deal, and drop his coverage. But people, real people, aren't rational self-maximizers. We have quirks. One of those quirks is we don't like to pay something for nothing.  "

"Now, sign-ups didn't spike because Massachusetts had tough penalties. Romneycare's penalties were even weaker than Obamacare's penalties. So either weak penalties were incentive enough or people were buying insurance just because they were supposed to. "

It is simply remarkable to me that people who write stuff like this seem to be complete unable to accept the notion that having a decent healthcare plan is good risk management policy at the individual level. No one is immune to risk. Maybe, just maybe, there are a lot of young healthy people out there that would much rather have a healthcare plan than roll the dice by going without with the knowledge that they'd go bankrupt if they so much as had anything worse happen to them then break an arm.

My brother, unknowingly, had 3 herniated disks in his neck. At the beach one day (I was there) he was in the ocean and a fairly big wave crashed against his back. The minor 'whiplash' he received nearly paralyzed him (his spinal chord was pinched between two vertebrae). He was unable to move for several minutes, nearly drowned, and had to be pulled out of 3 feet of water. He had to be medevac'd to the local trauma center. He was in a neck brace for months until he could get stabilization surgery that put plates around those 3 herniated disks. Thankfully, he made a full recovery. But no warning whatsoever. Totally healthy, swimming in the ocean, wave hits *bang*. Months of treatment, surgery, and therapy.

Yea, having healthcare is more about planning for the unexpected rather than "just because they were supposed to".
 
2013-11-20 03:18:58 PM  

Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.

Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.

I'm too lazy to make a new user.  Do you disagree with what I said?  Why or why not?

Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial. Your username basically says "I am a troll", so why should I waste my breath actually discussing with you? Why should I believe you'll bother to respond in good faith?

Also, wait. Why do you specify 'democrats' in the second paragraph? I thought you were asking for accomplishments made by *LIBERALS* (which th epeople pushing for gay rights most *Certainly* are), not by *DEMOCRATS*.


Well, you responded to me twice, so you're doing a bad job of ignoring me.
 
2013-11-20 03:20:28 PM  

lennavan: Egoy3k: Bullshiat. As a manager

Great, you also are a manager.  So then you know how it actually works.

Egoy3k: if I refuse to hire someone based on their sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or failing a pre-employment drug screening (yup if drug use is consistent with addiction that is now a disability and as an employer I am obliged to accommodate the disability if possible)

Right.  But as a manager you also know there is zero chance whatsoever they'll ever prove that, unless of course you mail them a letter saying "you were the perfect candidate except your skin is black, so that is the only reason I turned you down," then you sign it, get it notarized and send it certified mail.


Yeah but lately the burden of proof has been drifting towards the employer.  Don't get me wrong It's not that I want to discriminate, I don't. It's that when I hire there is always a risk that my company could face legal action that regardless of how groundless it is costs money to defend against.  Manufacturing in North America has extremely small margins when comparing it to manufacturing in say, China where you don't have to pay workers much or worry about pollution or any of the other things they don't care about. The only edge we have are better educated, more capable employees who are able to make decisions and think on their feet. When those same employees become potential vectors for legal action over alleged slights you are in serious trouble.
 
2013-11-20 03:21:31 PM  
ronhamprod.com
Have black folk started shooting white folk yet? Cause that's the sign of the holy war against Capitalism.
 
2013-11-20 03:23:22 PM  

someonelse: Egoy3k: someonelse: The bolded part is kinda why we need unions.

Bullshiat. As a manager if I knowingly create an unsafe condition where one of my employees gets hurt or dies I got to jail and my company is fined.  If I knowingly ignore an unsafe condition that might hurt somebody I can be personally fined and my company will also be fined.  if I refuse to hire someone based on their sex, race, creed, sexual orientation, or failing a pre-employment drug screening (yup if drug use is consistent with addiction that is now a disability and as an employer I am obliged to accommodate the disability if possible) They can sue my company and put me in front of a human rights tribunal that can fine me personally.  Just last year (not at my company) a man carved the names of three black employees into bananas and left them in the locker room to be discovered.  His employer, as i would, fired him on the spot.  The employer was subsequently sued and forced to re-hire this man.  Workers have no need of extra protection above and beyond what the government already gives them.

That's fine, if you believe that workers are entitled to no leverage with management beyond the right not to be killed or injured through negligence.


Yeah because my single paragraph fark post was the sum total of all regulations and legislation that I comply with by law instead a small sample.
 
2013-11-20 03:23:44 PM  

Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.



So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.
 
2013-11-20 03:23:47 PM  

cman: It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the po ...

You think that Democrats don't have big business interests at heart? So that whole deregulation thing that Clinton pushed through and which many Liberals supported never happened? Aww, isn't this cute?

/Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter as they are not beholden to us


I said *particularly* Republicans, not exclusively. Democrats do love big business, but again, they at least understand the need to throw scraps to the poor. High profits can't last long when the customer base has no money and, y'know, things like riots are bad for business.

Also, Democrats are not liberals. There is next to no liberal representation in our government; we have conservatives and extremists.
 
2013-11-20 03:25:23 PM  

LordJiro: cman: It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the po ...

You think that Democrats don't have big business interests at heart? So that whole deregulation thing that Clinton pushed through and which many Liberals supported never happened? Aww, isn't this cute?

/Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter as they are not beholden to us

I said *particularly* Republicans, not exclusively. Democrats do love big business, but again, they at least understand the need to throw scraps to the poor. High profits can't last long when the customer base has no money and, y'know, things like riots are bad for business.

Also, Democrats are not liberals. There is next to no liberal representation in our government; we have conservatives and extremists.


Thats like saying I like Steve better because he only farks me up the ass, unlike Frank, who farks me up the ass and then makes me lick his member clean.
 
2013-11-20 03:26:13 PM  

cman: North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.


So they targeted people who collaborated with their colonial oppressors?  Do you expect me to feel bad for catholic priests that were executed by republicans in Spain during the civil war or Tsarist clergy men during the russian revolution too? Because I don't.
 
2013-11-20 03:26:33 PM  

cman: /Democrat or Republican, it doesn't matter


So not true. I agree that ultimately, both parties are working more for their rich donors than they are for us. But that doesn't mean that their tactics are not very different.
 
2013-11-20 03:27:29 PM  

LordJiro: It's not just indifference. Our government, Republicans in particular, go out of their way to make it HARDER for poor people to survive. Constant stabs at social safety nets, farking over any attempt to get poor people health care, trying to ban abortion because JAYSUS, the gutting and corruption of our public education system...All of these actively and directly harm the poor. Not to mention the clinging to supply-side bullshiat, which was designed from the ground up to fatten the richest's pockets at the expense of everyone else.

Democrats, at least, seem to realize that SOME scraps need to be thrown to the poor so the country isn't drained completely dry.


You just don't understand.  Republicans are engaging in tough love.  If the poors are faced with starvation then they will look harder for a job.  When they prostitute themselves to feed their kids they learn the dignity of honest work.

(Some) Republicans honestly believe that they are helping the poor by cutting benefits.
 
2013-11-20 03:28:09 PM  

skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.


So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.


I have to admit that's a pretty impressive way to be completely wrong.
 
2013-11-20 03:28:23 PM  

FarkedOver: cman: North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.

So they targeted people who collaborated with their colonial oppressors?  Do you expect me to feel bad for catholic priests that were executed by republicans in Spain during the civil war or Tsarist clergy men during the russian revolution too? Because I don't.


No

I know Communists are indifferent, too.
 
2013-11-20 03:29:47 PM  

cman: Thats like saying I like Steve better because he only farks me up the ass, unlike Frank, who farks me up the ass and then makes me lick his member clean.


That seems reasonable.
 
2013-11-20 03:33:02 PM  

Evil High Priest: cman: Thats like saying I like Steve better because he only farks me up the ass, unlike Frank, who farks me up the ass and then makes me lick his member clean.

That seems reasonable.


The problem is is that I don't like getting it up the ass

If I were a gay man, I might be different on that. But I am not.
 
2013-11-20 03:33:04 PM  

Evil High Priest: That seems reasonable.


Weird, though.  It's a political analogy by a conservative that features homosex as its central metaphor.

I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.
 
2013-11-20 03:35:05 PM  

Skleenar: Evil High Priest: That seems reasonable.

Weird, though.  It's a political analogy by a conservative that features homosex as its central metaphor.

I'm not sure I've ever seen that before.


oh ffs...

This world isn't filled with only Liberals and Conservatives.
 
2013-11-20 03:35:42 PM  

Evil High Priest: cman: Thats like saying I like Steve better because he only farks me up the ass, unlike Frank, who farks me up the ass and then makes me lick his member clean.

That seems reasonable.


Ooooooooooooooooooooooooookay; guess this thread went to a certain place it was not meant to pass through.
 
2013-11-20 03:36:28 PM  

cman: If I were a gay man, I might be different on that. But I am not.


I am confident that your repeated denials are conclusive evidence of your absence of gayness.  I bet there isn't even the slightest shred of attraction to another man in your being.  You're not one of those guys who sees something like this:
www.mimifroufrou.com
And you feel an unexpected stirring down "there".

Nope.  Not the guy who asserts twice in a single post that he isn't gay, right after graphically describing gay sex.
 
2013-11-20 03:39:27 PM  

llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.

Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.

I'm too lazy to make a new user.  Do you disagree with what I said?  Why or why not?

Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial. Your username basically says "I am a troll", so why should I waste my breath actually discussing with you? Why should I believe you'll bother to respond in good faith?

Also, wait. Why do you specify 'democrats' in the second paragraph? I thought you were asking for accomplishments made by *LIBERALS* (which th epeople pushing for gay rights most *Certainly* are), not by *DEMOCRATS*.

Well, you responded to me twice, so you're doing a bad job of ignoring me.


True. I suppose I shall have to rectify that. Especially since you're not actually answering anything.


FarkedOver: cman: North Vietnam assassinated families of South Vietnam's government. Not just politicians, but also police. Anyone that had any association with the southern Government was fair game. Didn't matter if they were just a 3 year old kid who's dad was a peace officer.

So they targeted people who collaborated with their colonial oppressors?  Do you expect me to feel bad for catholic priests that were executed by republicans in Spain during the civil war or Tsarist clergy men during the russian revolution too? Because I don't.


So, wait, does that also mean we shouldn't feel sorry for victims of OTHER totalitarian regimes, 'cause they supported an opposition? You're OK with killing the kids, too?

The later question I am actually asking in all seriousness. You support that/don't feel sorry for the kids? Really?
 
2013-11-20 03:41:08 PM  

Skleenar: cman: If I were a gay man, I might be different on that. But I am not.

I am confident that your repeated denials are conclusive evidence of your absence of gayness.  I bet there isn't even the slightest shred of attraction to another man in your being.  You're not one of those guys who sees something like this:
[www.mimifroufrou.com image 530x686]
And you feel an unexpected stirring down "there".

Nope.  Not the guy who asserts twice in a single post that he isn't gay, right after graphically describing gay sex.


Usually a guy who supports homosexual marriage and transgendered rights are the straight people. Its the gay bashers and the tranny haters that are the actual gay people.
 
2013-11-20 03:47:05 PM  

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

Can you expound on that?

Um, sure.  So far the anecdotal evidence that's been put out about enrollments (and that's all that's been made available, a subject I'll address shortly), those that have managed to enroll in private plans (not the expanded Medicaid) have been among the "neediest" people - people with cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.  Heavy users of the system.  In order to maintain some sort of financial balance, for each of them, O'care needs about 20 people whose premiums exceed their medical expenses - basically, young healthy men (sorry ladies, you're expensive at any age, NTTAWWT).

Those guys are harder to track down than a will-o-the-wisp.  They need to be healthy, employed, make enough money to pay for the health insurance but not get it from their employer, not have a plan that O's latest promise will "let them keep," etc.  Oh, and be willing to pay more in premiums than they're likely to spend in healthcare plus the paltry tax penalty for not carrying insurance.

Now, if the exchanges were seeing the kind of ratios between net contributors and net takers from the system, Jay Carney would lead with that at every frigging news conference.  But they're not, so the anecdotes ("gammy finally can afford the rehab that will get her walking!") appear to be, by and large, representative (i.e., just what we'd expect - the people signing up are the people with a perceived acute need for insurance).  Which means the plans being offered are going to go upside down very, very quickly, and the insurers will be raising premiums dramatically to try to make the plans work financially.  Which will drive more and more non-heavy users out of the system, which will, in turn, drive greater premium increase ...


I didn't know healthcare was supposed to be about financial balance.

I thought it was supposed to be about healthcare.
 
2013-11-20 03:50:06 PM  
I get back in here from a week of beating a newish computer into submission with a non-orthodox install of W7 and....what the hell is THIS dripping off the ceiling!?
 
2013-11-20 03:53:15 PM  

Felgraf: So, wait, does that also mean we shouldn't feel sorry for victims of OTHER totalitarian regimes, 'cause they supported an opposition? You're OK with killing the kids, too?

The later question I am actually asking in all seriousness. You support that/don't feel sorry for the kids? Really?


It sucks that shiatty things happen during revolutions and during war.

Let me put it to you this way, had the Vietnam not been subject to foreign influence I doubt you would have had the violence we saw.

During the Spanish Civil War Franco staged a coup against a popularly elected government because it was too far to the left...... Not even socialist or communist it was a legit popular government.

During the Russian revolution, the October revolution was staged with very little casualties, I think maybe 4 people died in the October revolution.  It was the ensuing war and foreign involvement that caused all the problems.

Shiatty things happen during war.
 
2013-11-20 04:03:18 PM  

FarkedOver: Felgraf: So, wait, does that also mean we shouldn't feel sorry for victims of OTHER totalitarian regimes, 'cause they supported an opposition? You're OK with killing the kids, too?

The later question I am actually asking in all seriousness. You support that/don't feel sorry for the kids? Really?

It sucks that shiatty things happen during revolutions and during war.

Let me put it to you this way, had the Vietnam not been subject to foreign influence I doubt you would have had the violence we saw.

During the Spanish Civil War Franco staged a coup against a popularly elected government because it was too far to the left...... Not even socialist or communist it was a legit popular government.

During the Russian revolution, the October revolution was staged with very little casualties, I think maybe 4 people died in the October revolution.  It was the ensuing war and foreign involvement that caused all the problems.

Shiatty things happen during war.


Oh, I totally agree we farked up vietnam, and had we helped them gain independence from france when they first asked, we'd have had a staunch ally.

And yes. farked up things happen in war.That doesn't make farking Mai Lai's and dissapeared folks in south american countries farking OKAY. Nor does it make the murdering of kids 'cause, hey, their parents did bad shiat, OK. To suggest that "Welp! Terrible things happen in war" just... seems like the people that so glibly dismissed shiat like, well, Mai Lai, or Abu Grahib. Or the continuous horrors america sponsored in south america-why should anyone REALLY care? Bad things happen in war, after all. Those folks shouldn't have aligned themselves with people we felt were marxists, I suppose!

No, wait, that's a HORRIFYING point of view to have.
 
2013-11-20 04:05:51 PM  

skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.


So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.


You don't read good, do you?
 
2013-11-20 04:06:59 PM  
With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"
 
2013-11-20 04:11:04 PM  

skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"


static.fjcdn.com
 
2013-11-20 04:16:52 PM  

Rhino_man: skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.


So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.

You don't read good, do you?


You don't critically think good, do you?
 
2013-11-20 04:18:54 PM  

Rhino_man: skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"

[static.fjcdn.com image 449x422]


Besides, the states are even better at being racist than the Federal government.

or something.

I may need a new gasket on my rusherator.
 
2013-11-20 04:22:42 PM  

skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"


Conservative humor, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big round of applause!
 
2013-11-20 04:25:50 PM  
skylabdown: HALP!! What's that burning smell?

Yup.
 
2013-11-20 04:26:19 PM  

Felgraf: Oh, I totally agree we farked up vietnam, and had we helped them gain independence from france when they first asked, we'd have had a staunch ally.

And yes. farked up things happen in war.That doesn't make farking Mai Lai's and dissapeared folks in south american countries farking OKAY. Nor does it make the murdering of kids 'cause, hey, their parents did bad shiat, OK. To suggest that "Welp! Terrible things happen in war" just... seems like the people that so glibly dismissed shiat like, well, Mai Lai, or Abu Grahib. Or the continuous horrors america sponsored in south america-why should anyone REALLY care? Bad things happen in war, after all. Those folks shouldn't have aligned themselves with people we felt were marxists, I suppose!

No, wait, that's a HORRIFYING point of view to have.


It's as if the point of war is to horrify.  That's the way it has always been.  Hell just look at General Sherman.  You have to make people hurt if you want to win.  Understanding the nature of warfare and revolution doesn't mean someone basks in it.
 
2013-11-20 04:26:45 PM  

theknuckler_33: skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"

Conservative humor, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big round of applause!



Look who has a saggy diaper that leaks!

This is for your Mr. Knuckler 33:   : (
 
2013-11-20 04:30:48 PM  

skylabdown: Look who has a saggy diaper that leaks!


That is a, um, fitting response to his comment about conservative humor.
 
2013-11-20 04:37:43 PM  

skylabdown: You don't critically think good, do you?


Sorry for the aside, but did you huff a lot of gas back in the 1970s?
 
2013-11-20 04:40:54 PM  

whidbey: skylabdown: You don't critically think good, do you?

Sorry for the aside, but did you huff a lot of gas back in the 1970s?


Not as much as I do here on Fark.
 
2013-11-20 04:41:23 PM  

FarkedOver: It's as if the point of war is to horrify. That's the way it has always been. Hell just look at General Sherman. You have to make people hurt if you want to win. Understanding the nature of warfare and revolution doesn't mean someone basks in it.


Yes, but you seemed to say you weren't horrified by it. You seemed to say "Welp, that happens, what can you do?"
 
2013-11-20 04:53:11 PM  

skylabdown: theknuckler_33: skylabdown: With Obama's approval rating so low (sub 40%), I think the most important question we have to face as a country is "Why is over 60% of the country so racist?"

Conservative humor, ladies and gentlemen! Let's give him a big round of applause!


Look who has a saggy diaper that leaks!

This is for your Mr. Knuckler 33:   : (


WOW! Another knee-slapper! Keep 'em coming!
 
2013-11-20 05:08:33 PM  

Felgraf: FarkedOver: It's as if the point of war is to horrify. That's the way it has always been. Hell just look at General Sherman. You have to make people hurt if you want to win. Understanding the nature of warfare and revolution doesn't mean someone basks in it.

Yes, but you seemed to say you weren't horrified by it. You seemed to say "Welp, that happens, what can you do?"


I'm not horrified when revolutionary justice and terrors occur on those that were once oppressing people.  I'm horrified by the loss of life of anyone else though.
 
2013-11-20 05:12:03 PM  

skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: Rhino_man: skylabdown: So what the subby is saying is that, in fact, States do a much better job administrating than the Federal Government does...  is that right?  The States are much more efficient and better suited to govern than the Federal Government?  The Federal Government should protect borders, establish trade guidelines with other countries, issue currency and that's about it?  Most things are obviously better handled at a State and even more local level?  More efficient, eh?  Better?

Is that what I'm hearing?

No.  What you're hearing is that the Federal government farked up this one thing, and that the states most likely to shout "STATES RIGHTS" are the ones suffering from it, because they failed to exercise those rights when they had the chance.

TL,DR:  Republicans in state-level office are hypocrites, and it shows.


So you agree that the individual states have done a better job than the Federal Government.  I know it must completely pain you to even think this is possible...   Sorry to pee in your Cheerios.

You don't read good, do you?

You don't critically think good, do you?


Let me break it down for you:
Group A:  STATES RIGHTS, ALWAYS!  FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE OF MY STATE'S RIGHTS!
Group B:  Some things should be done by the Feds and others by the States.
Obama:  Here's an opportunity for the individual states to take charge of implementation of a law.
Group A:  NOPE!  OBAMA BAD!
Group B:  Sweet.

Now Group A is complaining that their results are terrible.  Well, tough shiat.
 
2013-11-20 05:25:12 PM  

FarkedOver: I'm not horrified when revolutionary justice and terrors occur on those that were once oppressing people. I'm horrified by the loss of life of anyone else though.


And you include kids in the "Once oppressing people?"
 
2013-11-20 05:34:04 PM  
Uh, maybe I should poast Picasso's Guernica in here?
 
2013-11-20 05:38:50 PM  

Felgraf: FarkedOver: I'm not horrified when revolutionary justice and terrors occur on those that were once oppressing people. I'm horrified by the loss of life of anyone else though.

And you include kids in the "Once oppressing people?"


Children can be so cruel.
 
2013-11-20 05:41:51 PM  

Kittypie070: Uh, maybe I should poast Picasso's Guernica in here?


first poast
www.buckmasters.com
 
Displayed 50 of 415 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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