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.

(NYPost)   The Democratic Party is out of Centrists: Pat Moynihan, lion of liberalism but also of common sense and a strong military, must be spinning in his grave   (nypost.com) divider line 179
    More: Obvious, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Democratic Party, humans, Christine Quinn, party-line vote, public financing, moderates, Blasio  
•       •       •

1333 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Dec 2013 at 4:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-08 12:05:01 PM  
Wow. Check out the crazy on that guy. Modern Democrats are 90's Republicans.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-08 12:25:37 PM  
So there are nothing but moderate conservatives in the Democratic party?
 
2013-12-08 12:32:22 PM  
i236.photobucket.com
 
2013-12-08 01:20:14 PM  
When you consider that the GOP has gone over to the radicals, what one might call "the Center" has been shifted. In that sense, what one calls a Centerist position has been altered, and thus, what had been the Centerist position has been turned into, by the folks making the claims, into the "new Left."

What we have, are folks who are looking at policy and politics as narrative. There is only the Right and the Left. It doesn't consider the actual policies, only games played with semantics and if there is a position held by one side, it MUST be AUTOMATICALLY and AXIOMATICALLY opposed, and there is NO middle ground to be considered. Only points scored for causing one side or the other to abandon a position or concede that they've been beaten by raw force of numbers. Not consideration. Not actual politics or negotiation, but simple brute force of bodies on the floor. The positions themselves are moot. If one side is in favor, it MUST be opposed. And that is what is dragging our system of governance down at this point, because it has nothing to do with actual policies, actual people, even real numbers. It's all about image and narrative, and trying to get bodies to throw on the floor to leverage votes to enact things, and let the media spin the result so that their "side" is always correct. The problem is: the radicalized Right has a LOT of think tanks, a lot of media outlets, and a PR machine that is overclocking at this point to keep up. History? That's irrelevant. Actual speeches? Irrelevant. Heck, folks' memories are short, and spin is really the only thing that matters in this political Hellscape.

And that is what folks want. At least on the upper tiers on the Right. Middle ground? Centerists? Those folks only matter if you can get them to cross the aisle, and at this point, the House and Senate are mostly comprised of ideologues who consider negotiation to be beneath them. They want to point fingers and say, "Hey, they won't negotiate!" which means really, "They aren't rolling over and giving us everything we want." It's not about good faith discussions or agreement of principles, it's a winner take all, brute force methodology, and it's driving the discussion to places where folks can claim that the ACA was rammed down OUR THROATS! when the ACA was the compromise. It was very much capitulation to include a LOT of ideas that were authored by the Heritage Foundation, and enacted even by the last GOP Presidential candidate while in his gubernatorial office. And it's done to serve not policy, or the most good for the most people, but to serve narrative, and delay so that folks can extract the most profit in the short term.

And that's the problem. It's all short term thinking. The GOP is serving narrative over policy, because in the short term, it makes sense. Rove and his ilk realized that people DO have short memories, and thus push hot button topics, to provoke reaction. The problem is, that folks become desensitized to such actions after a while, which means you have to ramp up the stimuli to get a reaction again and again over time. Which is what has led us to the place where they NEEDED a TEA Party to get folks "motivated." And keep ramping up the Justification Machine to eleventy, just to stay afloat. And all the while, continue to call this perversion of Conservative thought to a "win at any price" mentality that serves not people, not actual laws, not governance in general, but a narrative that folks can agree upon, or at least continue repeating until a percentage of folks acquiesce that East is West, North is South, and always has been. THAT is the legacy of Reagan. Not the fall of the Evil Empire, but the embrasure of NeoCons as a philosophical force within the party, and an embrasure of their Ivory Tower mentality that INSISTS that if you just repeat a thing long enough, folks will believe it, and thus it will BECOME reality. It is a willful misunderstanding of the principle of subjective reality. And it relies on spin, narrative, and folks continuing to massage said message, because otherwise, they might have to admit that, objectively, they have been backing policies that are NOT in the best interests of the nation.

It isn't a Leftist position to understand what the narrowing of the field of the wealthiest of interests has had detrimental effect on the economy of a good deal of the country. You can't just average economic effect over a state, and proclaim, "Hey, banks in New York City are doing fine, so Batavia is crazy to think that they need anything in the way of economic assistance." You can't simply proclaim that there is NO malfeasance in an industry by changing the rules of what is considered malfeasance, to protect folks facing prosecution, and then clap these "fine and honored citizens" on the back for being so gosh darned ethical.

We NEED Centerists. The problem is, the Democrats are already there--and that was really the brilliance of Bill Clinton, to bring his party to the middle, and thus the ideologues on the Right retreated to be the opposition simply out of "principle"--and the GOP desperately needs to shake up things, and find Centerists of their own. Of course, these folks are considered RINOS who have no place at the table, even if they espouse the principles that the party held for years, before abandoning those positions for increasingly radicalized visions, and who then needed cadres of authors, talking heads, and publishing houses to rebrand those radicalized visions as "Conservative" positions. At this point, I think, we're close to watching the coalitions within the party break apart--putting the Idiot Brigade on the ramparts and right there in the thick of it, where they are readily quoted was a populist thought, but one that is backfiring as these folks INSIST on using that position to keep yammering away. Which, may have a positive effect, in that attrition will winnow out the loudest of idiots, and then the party can point to the losses as a need to keep the Idiots in check. The problem is, that they've elevated so many with their own spin teams as being the "heart and soul" of the party, that if these folks are lost, then the Idiot Brigade may just take their ball and go home, and their voting bloc will go to third party candidates, who will only suck votes away from the Republican side of things.

There are times when I wonder if maybe we should have gone with a Parliamentary system, which wouldn't have eliminated parties, but it might have at least allowed for more than just the polar system that we are gripped with now.
 
2013-12-08 02:08:45 PM  
i44.tinypic.com

I suppose its easy to just talk a few sentences of shiat copypasta at a time if you don't actually have to back up your claims with anything resembling evidence. But then again, it is the NEW YORK POST.
 
2013-12-08 02:12:22 PM  
This is the derp the Republicans, especially the Teabaggers, have been trying to sell for some time to explain why they are being such obstructionist assholes.  "We're just protecting the American people from these out of control libs in the Democrat Party!"

Which ignores the fact that Barack Obama is just barely to the left of Ronald Reagan.  And really only on social issues.
 
2013-12-08 02:34:57 PM  
Today on Republican Projection Theater
 
2013-12-08 02:38:24 PM  
Wow, there's so much wrong in that piece I don't even know where to begin.

If anything, the problem with the Democratic party has been that they've been too moderate, to willing to compromise, and too much on the side of Wall St, Hollywood, and other big business interests.

It's only been in the last year or so that the party has apparently grown a spine, as seen by the handling of the shutdown situation and the nuclear option regarding senate filibusters.

I don't want centrists, dyed-in-the-wool liberals who will pull us out of wars when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to benefit the people through single payer instead of to benefit insurance companies like the ACA (not that the ACA isn't better than what we had before, but that's more of an indictment against our previous system than praise for the ACA), and will take on Wall Street, Hollywood, Comcast, Walmart, etc, and to give us banking laws that benefit and protect the people, IP and copyright law that builds the public domain back up and protects a broader interpretation of fair use, real net neutrality along with mandatory line sharing for more real competition amongst  ISPs, and a minimum wage that is a living wage.

I want someone who wears being called a socialist like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 1%, but so what? Fark 'em'.
 
2013-12-08 02:40:34 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Wow, there's so much wrong in that piece I don't even know where to begin.

If anything, the problem with the Democratic party has been that they've been too moderate, to willing to compromise, and too much on the side of Wall St, Hollywood, and other big business interests.

It's only been in the last year or so that the party has apparently grown a spine, as seen by the handling of the shutdown situation and the nuclear option regarding senate filibusters.

I don't want centrists, I want dyed-in-the-wool liberals who will pull us out of wars when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to benefit the people through single payer instead of to benefit insurance companies like the ACA (not that the ACA isn't better than what we had before, but that's more of an indictment against our previous system than praise for the ACA), and will take on Wall Street, Hollywood, Comcast, Walmart, etc, and to give us banking laws that benefit and protect the people, IP and copyright law that builds the public domain back up and protects a broader interpretation of fair use, real net neutrality along with mandatory line sharing for more real competition amongst  ISPs, and a minimum wage that is a living wage.

I want someone who wears being called a socialist like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 1%, but so what? Fark 'em'.


FTFM

Also, I'll say Obama hasn't been a bad president, but so far he really hasn't followed through on his potential either.  He spent far too much of his first term trying to reach across he aisle, and has been gun shy about backing a real liberal agenda outside of social issues.  He's done a good job on gay rights, so I'll give him that, but he could have been so much more.
 
2013-12-08 02:41:08 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Wow, there's so much wrong in that piece I don't even know where to begin.

If anything, the problem with the Democratic party has been that they've been too moderate, to willing to compromise, and too much on the side of Wall St, Hollywood, and other big business interests.

It's only been in the last year or so that the party has apparently grown a spine, as seen by the handling of the shutdown situation and the nuclear option regarding senate filibusters.

I don't want centrists, dyed-in-the-wool liberals who will pull us out of wars when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to benefit the people through single payer instead of to benefit insurance companies like the ACA (not that the ACA isn't better than what we had before, but that's more of an indictment against our previous system than praise for the ACA), and will take on Wall Street, Hollywood, Comcast, Walmart, etc, and to give us banking laws that benefit and protect the people, IP and copyright law that builds the public domain back up and protects a broader interpretation of fair use, real net neutrality along with mandatory line sharing for more real competition amongst  ISPs, and a minimum wage that is a living wage.

I want someone who wears being called a socialist like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 1%, but so what? Fark 'em'.


Why must you repost Mad Libes?

Thats the same bullshiat Republicans say
 
2013-12-08 02:41:44 PM  

cman: TuteTibiImperes: Wow, there's so much wrong in that piece I don't even know where to begin.

If anything, the problem with the Democratic party has been that they've been too moderate, to willing to compromise, and too much on the side of Wall St, Hollywood, and other big business interests.

It's only been in the last year or so that the party has apparently grown a spine, as seen by the handling of the shutdown situation and the nuclear option regarding senate filibusters.

I don't want centrists, dyed-in-the-wool liberals who will pull us out of wars when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to benefit the people through single payer instead of to benefit insurance companies like the ACA (not that the ACA isn't better than what we had before, but that's more of an indictment against our previous system than praise for the ACA), and will take on Wall Street, Hollywood, Comcast, Walmart, etc, and to give us banking laws that benefit and protect the people, IP and copyright law that builds the public domain back up and protects a broader interpretation of fair use, real net neutrality along with mandatory line sharing for more real competition amongst  ISPs, and a minimum wage that is a living wage.

I want someone who wears being called a socialist like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 1%, but so what? Fark 'em'.

Why must you repost Mad Libs?

Thats the same bullshiat Republicans say


MAD LIBS, MAD LIBS, farking autocorrect
 
2013-12-08 02:48:36 PM  

cman: TuteTibiImperes: Wow, there's so much wrong in that piece I don't even know where to begin.

If anything, the problem with the Democratic party has been that they've been too moderate, to willing to compromise, and too much on the side of Wall St, Hollywood, and other big business interests.

It's only been in the last year or so that the party has apparently grown a spine, as seen by the handling of the shutdown situation and the nuclear option regarding senate filibusters.

I don't want centrists, dyed-in-the-wool liberals who will pull us out of wars when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to benefit the people through single payer instead of to benefit insurance companies like the ACA (not that the ACA isn't better than what we had before, but that's more of an indictment against our previous system than praise for the ACA), and will take on Wall Street, Hollywood, Comcast, Walmart, etc, and to give us banking laws that benefit and protect the people, IP and copyright law that builds the public domain back up and protects a broader interpretation of fair use, real net neutrality along with mandatory line sharing for more real competition amongst  ISPs, and a minimum wage that is a living wage.

I want someone who wears being called a socialist like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 1%, but so what? Fark 'em'.

Why must you repost Mad Libes?

Thats the same bullshiat Republicans say


Having some actual liberals around would be a refreshing change
 
2013-12-08 02:50:16 PM  
Centrist Democrats, otherwise known as Republicans.
Centrist Republicans, otherwise known as unicorns.
 
2013-12-08 02:57:12 PM  

cman: TuteTibiImperes: Wow, there's so much wrong in that piece I don't even know where to begin.

If anything, the problem with the Democratic party has been that they've been too moderate, to willing to compromise, and too much on the side of Wall St, Hollywood, and other big business interests.

It's only been in the last year or so that the party has apparently grown a spine, as seen by the handling of the shutdown situation and the nuclear option regarding senate filibusters.

I don't want centrists, dyed-in-the-wool liberals who will pull us out of wars when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to benefit the people through single payer instead of to benefit insurance companies like the ACA (not that the ACA isn't better than what we had before, but that's more of an indictment against our previous system than praise for the ACA), and will take on Wall Street, Hollywood, Comcast, Walmart, etc, and to give us banking laws that benefit and protect the people, IP and copyright law that builds the public domain back up and protects a broader interpretation of fair use, real net neutrality along with mandatory line sharing for more real competition amongst  ISPs, and a minimum wage that is a living wage.

I want someone who wears being called a socialist like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 1%, but so what? Fark 'em'.

Why must you repost Mad Libes?

Thats the same bullshiat Republicans say


If the Republicans said the same thing it would be great - then we'd all agree and could get the country on the right track.  Unfortunately, they say the exact opposite.  True, they're trying to push themselves farther and farther to the right, and I'm advocating for the Democrats to push harder to the left, but both the Democratic and Republican parties have been moving further and further to the right.

The GOP is calling for a more extreme version of the same, I'm calling for the Democrats to reverse course and actually try being liberal again.  I'm calling for a government that is for the working and middle class instead of the wealthy and corporations.
 
2013-12-08 04:16:54 PM  
www.animated-gifs.eu
 
2013-12-08 04:17:52 PM  
The Democratic Party has gone so far left

So far left that GOP ideas from the early-90s are radical socialism destroying America.

----------
How far to the right of Joseph de Maistre do you have to be to think that the democratic party is too liberal?
 
2013-12-08 04:25:00 PM  

ScaryBottles: [www.animated-gifs.eu image 200x165]


FTFA Many want the Constitution scrapped or stretched beyond recognition.

yep projection of the most blatant sort.
 
2013-12-08 04:26:11 PM  
I see, it all makes sense now. I thought the Republican party had gone to the Right, but it only appears that way because of how far to the extreme Left the Democrats have gone. Presumably in part because all the moderate Democrats left to join the bi-partisan, grass-roots, centrist Tea Party movement.
 
2013-12-08 04:29:58 PM  

Somacandra: [i44.tinypic.com image 445x298]

I suppose its easy to just talk a few sentences of shiat copypasta at a time if you don't actually have to back up your claims with anything resembling evidence. But then again, it is the NEW YORK POST.


What's that from, Top Secret?
 
2013-12-08 04:30:00 PM  
We get it, he's black.
 
2013-12-08 04:30:36 PM  
I believe that if we keep pushing the Teatards through the event horizon of stupid, they'll come out on the other side and be radical lefties.

"As President, I believe a balanced approach to energy policy is in order - one that protects domestic fuel sources and only causes minimal effect on the precious beauty of our country"

"LIKE HELL YOU DO! THERE SHOULD BE NO DRILLING ANYWHERE! WE NEED TO PROTECT THEM THERE ANIMALS FROM MONSTERS LIKE OBAMA!!"
 
2013-12-08 04:31:40 PM  
America is too stupid to realize its dying from starvation by fascism. Most of you jokers are too young or stupid to get or do anything about this situation. I understand that this happens all the time in republics. Just try to protect yourselves and watch the collapse from a distance.
 
2013-12-08 04:35:55 PM  

born_yesterday: We get it, he's black.



Yeah, that's the ticket
 
2013-12-08 04:41:56 PM  

Curious: ScaryBottles: [www.animated-gifs.eu image 200x165]

FTFA Many want the Constitution scrapped or stretched beyond recognition.

yep projection of the most blatant sort.


Yeah you're probably right, the New York post is noted for their journalistic savvy and unimpeachable integrity.
I mean its not like the author has an ax to grind or anything.......

http://nypost.com/2013/11/27/dems-following-obama-over-the-cliff/

http://nypost.com/2013/11/24/obama-has-no-hope-to-fix-fractured-amer ic a/

http://nypost.com/2013/11/17/the-wheels-have-fallen-off-the-obama-ba nd wagon/

http://nypost.com/2013/11/13/obamas-latest-broken-promise-is-destroy in g-his-credibility/

http://nypost.com/2013/11/10/new-york-times-obama-cheerleading-harms -t he-nation/

http://nypost.com/2013/11/05/de-blasio-wins-with-obamas-babyish-utop ia nism/

Thats just the first page.........

Man go back to Yahoo news you're not ready to play with the grown ups yet.
 
2013-12-08 04:42:37 PM  

vpb: So there are nothing but moderate conservatives in the Democratic party?


True. Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. Though the senior senator from MA is a damn good role model for where the party should be.
 
2013-12-08 04:45:05 PM  

hubiestubert: There are times when I wonder if maybe we should have gone with a Parliamentary system, which wouldn't have eliminated parties, but it might have at least allowed for more than just the polar system that we are gripped with now.


You've left your blog behind. That's kind of a shame, though I can still watch with interest your posts here.
 
2013-12-08 04:46:13 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: It's only been in the last year or so that the party has apparently grown a spine, as seen by the handling of the shutdown situation and the nuclear option regarding senate filibusters.


I just hope he gets off his ass and farking fills every single damn open appointment there is.
 
2013-12-08 04:53:46 PM  
There's no left left on the left but the far left?

[ohwaityou'reserious]

[hahaohwow]

[overtonwindow]
 
2013-12-08 04:56:21 PM  
Do any of you people know what it's like being the country that doesn't keep up? You people aren't keeping up. Scandinavia is making America look like the USSR. You get that, right?
 
2013-12-08 05:04:21 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Do any of you people know what it's like being the country that doesn't keep up? You people aren't keeping up. Scandinavia is making America look like the USSR. You get that, right?



Scandinavia is always cold and everyone's home have the same Ikea made furniture.
 
2013-12-08 05:06:10 PM  
This is less a political discussion and more a topic for Newton's first law of motion as the GOP drift farther and father away while screaming at everyone else for moving away from them.
 
2013-12-08 05:06:36 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Do any of you people know what it's like being the country that doesn't keep up? You people aren't keeping up. Scandinavia is making America look like the USSR. You get that, right?


Look, we voted for a third-world kleptocracy that allows the wealthy to further line their pockets, and by gum, that's what we're going to get! We will compromise on everything, except for the idea that the people who have the most should be able to have every advantage to get more! That's  America! That's the nation I signed up to be a part of, and I'll be damned before I let some progressivists build us decent infrastructure, a modern education system, and an accessible and sane health care system which has been shown to work in other nations. If we let people like you make decisions, people might start using public transportation or *shudder*  walk to work.
 
2013-12-08 05:07:22 PM  
When I first heard the claim, I thought it was a mistake or hoax. A talking head was describing a raging war in the Democratic Party between progressives and centrists.
Centrist Democrats? Aren't they already extinct?


Yeeaaahhhh, right. Sounds like a desperate Rovian conservative trying to take the problems of the GOP and suggest that they are actually problems of the Dems.
 
2013-12-08 05:09:15 PM  

hubiestubert: Wall of text


Dude, I almost always agree with your comments, but you should consider trying to be more concise.
 
2013-12-08 05:10:18 PM  

Yakk: This is less a political discussion and more a topic for Newton's first law of motion as the GOP drift farther and father away while screaming at everyone else for moving away from them.



Actually, neither side has budged an inch.  It's just a matter of your patience has been stretched to its limits or not
 
2013-12-08 05:16:47 PM  
I can't wait until the GOP begins stoning adulterers and privatizing the water supply and Ted Cruz 2013 is the standard bearer for American liberalism.
 
2013-12-08 05:18:35 PM  
Oh, please. The Democratic Party has gone so far left ..

Oh, please.  I'm Canadian.  American politicians don't know what the left is.
 
2013-12-08 05:19:36 PM  
Centrists are far to radical for the democratic party.

imageshack.us
 
2013-12-08 05:19:53 PM  

theknuckler_33: hubiestubert: Wall of text

Dude, I almost always agree with your comments, but you should consider trying to be more concise.


Yo, this be some whack ass bullsh*t...

That better?
 
2013-12-08 05:20:44 PM  

CorporatePerson: I can't wait until the GOP begins stoning adulterers and privatizing the water supply and Ted Cruz 2013 is the standard bearer for American liberalism.


And somehow denying that the GOP ever stood for those "radical and dangerous" liberal positions.
 
2013-12-08 05:20:59 PM  

Ned Stark: Centrists are far to radical for the democratic party.

[imageshack.us image 414x640]


Jesus that makes Communist propaganda look sane
 
2013-12-08 05:21:48 PM  
When I think of centrists the NY Post is the first paper that comes to mind.
 
2013-12-08 05:23:04 PM  

Ned Stark: Centrists are far to radical for the democratic party.


SVR.
 
2013-12-08 05:25:37 PM  

ScaryBottles: Man go back to Yahoo news you're not ready to play with the grown ups yet.


dude WTF. i was agreeing with you. or what i took your position to be.
 
2013-12-08 05:26:28 PM  

hubiestubert: theknuckler_33: hubiestubert: Wall of text

Dude, I almost always agree with your comments, but you should consider trying to be more concise.

Yo, this be some whack ass bullsh*t...

That better?


Well, if polar opposites are the only options... yea.
 
2013-12-08 05:31:24 PM  

Curious: ScaryBottles: Man go back to Yahoo news you're not ready to play with the grown ups yet.

dude WTF. i was agreeing with you. or what i took your position to be.


sorry its still early for me...........

hangover. first one in literally 2 years.
 
2013-12-08 05:33:03 PM  
eat a farking dick submitter
 
2013-12-08 05:35:41 PM  

Jackson Herring: eat a farking dick submitter


This kind of eloquence is why you are favorite

no sarc///
 
2013-12-08 05:37:17 PM  
If anything, the problem with the Republican Party has been that they've been too moderate, too willing to compromise, and too much on the side of big government and big business.

It's only been in the past few years that the party has grown a spine, as evidenced by the rise of the Tea Party and the election of actual leaders like Ted Cruz.

I don't want centrists, I want dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who will cut spending when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to promote market competition instead of more government subsidies and redistribution (not that the ACA is as bad as the system liberals really want, but that's more of an indictment against liberalism than praise for the ACA), and will take on Obama, Hollywood, gays, atheists, etc, and roll back regulations that hurt business, outlaw the degrading filth emanating from our TVs and computers, crack down on anti-American speech, deport illegal immigrants, and eliminate the minimum wage to promote job growth.

I want someone who wears being called a oligarch like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 47%, but so what? Fark 'em'.
 
2013-12-08 05:38:07 PM  
Actually the Democratic Party has plenty of good ideas.

If only people would support them instead of "NO U BOTH SIDES BAD" when it comes to political matters.

We'd be so much better off.
 
2013-12-08 05:38:17 PM  

Bondith: Oh, please. The Democratic Party has gone so far left ..

Oh, please.  I'm Canadian.  American politicians don't know what the left is.


So very very very much THIS. Good grief.
 
2013-12-08 05:38:44 PM  
The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.
 
2013-12-08 05:40:43 PM  

ScaryBottles: Jackson Herring: eat a farking dick submitter

This kind of eloquence is why you are favorite

no sarc///


it's also why I am a "favorite" of the mods
 
2013-12-08 05:41:00 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: He spent far too much of his first term trying to reach across he aisle


Telling the people across the aisle, "I won" and refusing to negotiate isn't exactly reaching across.  Not that I would have expected the GOP to actually negotiate in good faith.
 
2013-12-08 05:43:54 PM  

Captain Dan: BSABSVR

 
2013-12-08 05:44:41 PM  

Mentat: Today on Republican Projection Theater


No shiat. It's like they have no ideas of their own anymore. Reminds me of that "projection of the year" thread with the story on how the Democrats face a brewing civil war.

Do conservatives have anything other than "NO, U!" anymore?
 
2013-12-08 05:46:09 PM  
TuteTibiImperes:
Also, I'll say Obama hasn't been a bad president, but so far he really hasn't followed through on his potential either.  He spent far too much of his first term trying to reach across he aisle, and has been gun shy about backing a real liberal agenda outside of social issues.  He's done a good job on gay rights, so I'll give him that, but he could have been so much more.

I disagree.  Look at American history from the 20th century, and incremental change is what wins the day.

Under Obama, incremental change in health care and gay rights.

Under the next Democratic president, incremental change in gun control, NSA spying and the military-industrial complex.

/a progressive can hope, right?
 
2013-12-08 05:46:26 PM  

theknuckler_33: Captain Dan: BSABSVR


Seriously, a quarter of this country could add to a vote to ensure that the Republican Party never become powerful again, but NOOOOOOO. OBAMA'S FARKING UP. INCOMPETENT. WEB SITE. TAX AND SPEND.
 
2013-12-08 05:46:40 PM  

OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.


The military is not a linear proposition.
 
2013-12-08 05:48:21 PM  

Ned Stark: Centrists are far to radical for the democratic party.


oh yeah hurr durr a far right conservative was more liburul than Obama is derp derp derp
 
2013-12-08 05:49:16 PM  
Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.

Also, the GOP has went completely crazy, too, but not quite in the other direction. That is, they want unlimited power, too.

We're farked.
 
2013-12-08 05:50:51 PM  

Captain Dan: If anything, the problem with the Republican Party has been that they've been too moderate, too willing to compromise, and too much on the side of big government and big business.

It's only been in the past few years that the party has grown a spine, as evidenced by the rise of the Tea Party and the election of actual leaders like Ted Cruz.

I don't want centrists, I want dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who will cut spending when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to promote market competition instead of more government subsidies and redistribution (not that the ACA is as bad as the system liberals really want, but that's more of an indictment against liberalism than praise for the ACA), and will take on Obama, Hollywood, gays, atheists, etc, and roll back regulations that hurt business, outlaw the degrading filth emanating from our TVs and computers, crack down on anti-American speech, deport illegal immigrants, and eliminate the minimum wage to promote job growth.

I want someone who wears being called a oligarch like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 47%, but so what? Fark 'em'.


Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous the GOP position is.  The ideas in the original statement would be beneficial toward society, the ideas in your version would be detrimental.

This isn't a case of two opposed ideologies of equal merit where compromise can be found for the good of all, it's sanity and hope for the future vs continuing on our course of destroying the middle class and driving the poor closer and closer to edge of complete perpetual destitution.

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: He spent far too much of his first term trying to reach across he aisle

Telling the people across the aisle, "I won" and refusing to negotiate isn't exactly reaching across.  Not that I would have expected the GOP to actually negotiate in good faith.


He never said 'I won, I won't negotiate'.  The closest he came was in the debt ceiling/shutdown thing, and even then it wasn't 'I won't negotiate' it's 'I won't negotiate with someone with a bomb strapped to their chest who says 'my way or I blow us all to hell''.

He had two years of a supermajority when he took office that he could have used to get a ton done, instead he tried to throw some bones to the GOP and listen to their input on policy, so we're left with a bastardized health care law with no public option, a stimulus plan that never went far enough, and a ton of missed opportunities.

Your second point did come to pass though - in exchange to giving the GOP a spot at the table back then, they've thanked him by refusing to negotiate in good faith or operate in an ethical manner since.
 
2013-12-08 05:50:56 PM  

jenlen: Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.


What an asinine, meaningless statement for you to think is the "truest" ever. It means nothing. It's vapidity dressed up as political commentary.
 
2013-12-08 05:51:41 PM  

whidbey: Actually the Democratic Party has plenty of good ideas.

If only people would support them instead of "NO U BOTH SIDES BAD" when it comes to political matters.

We'd be so much better off.


Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.

Better donate at least $5 today. Show em I still believe.
 
2013-12-08 05:51:56 PM  

jenlen: Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.


Grow the fark up.
 
2013-12-08 05:52:08 PM  

vygramul: OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.

The military is not a linear proposition.


Don't care. We're spending too much.  How about we stop being the world's police and deal with our problems at home, instead?
 
2013-12-08 05:53:42 PM  

Captain Dan: If anything, the problem with the Republican Party has been that they've been too moderate, too willing to compromise, and too much on the side of big government and big business.

It's only been in the past few years that the party has grown a spine, as evidenced by the rise of the Tea Party and the election of actual leaders like Ted Cruz.

I don't want centrists, I want dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who will cut spending when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to promote market competition instead of more government subsidies and redistribution (not that the ACA is as bad as the system liberals really want, but that's more of an indictment against liberalism than praise for the ACA), and will take on Obama, Hollywood, gays, atheists, etc, and roll back regulations that hurt business, outlaw the degrading filth emanating from our TVs and computers, crack down on anti-American speech, deport illegal immigrants, and eliminate the minimum wage to promote job growth.

I want someone who wears being called a oligarch like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 47%, but so what? Fark 'em'.


10/10
 
2013-12-08 05:53:55 PM  

Ned Stark: Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.


Oh the "Hurr durr they had a Supermajority" lie again.

Old trolls are so exciting.
 
2013-12-08 05:57:00 PM  

OgreMagi: TuteTibiImperes: He spent far too much of his first term trying to reach across he aisle

Telling the people across the aisle, "I won" and refusing to negotiate isn't exactly reaching across.  Not that I would have expected the GOP to actually negotiate in good faith.


You mean the ACA, which is a compromise, and written to include ideas that the Heritage Foundation itself has been pimping across state legislatures for years? Or do you mean the scaled back departure from Afghanistan? Or do you mean the continuance of the War on Drugs, and a higher deportation rate than the LAST Administration? How about the budgets that KEPT a lot of the pork intact? What about the bailouts?

Please, detail in full--or even in part--how the Obama Administration has shown itself to NOT being willing to negotiate? I mean besides not abdicating after the election in the first place...

Elections DO have consequences. And at this point, the folks who haven't accepted it, have been whining, puling trust fund babies who have cried that they can't get EVERYTHING they want, and calling THAT inflexibility...
 
2013-12-08 05:57:05 PM  

Ned Stark: whidbey: Actually the Democratic Party has plenty of good ideas.

If only people would support them instead of "NO U BOTH SIDES BAD" when it comes to political matters.

We'd be so much better off.

Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.

Better donate at least $5 today. Show em I still believe.


The fact that they couldn't get single payer passed just highlights the fact that the Democrats are not populated by a bunch of far-left radicals. Thanks for pointing that out.
 
2013-12-08 05:57:32 PM  

jenlen: Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.

Also, the GOP has went completely crazy, too, but not quite in the other direction. That is, they want unlimited power, too.

We're farked.


A stronger government doesn't have to mean less liberty, it can mean more.  A strong government can fight for the people against abuses by corporations so that citizens aren't left without health coverage, with their pensions recklessly gambled away by Wall St bankers, or discriminated against based on their race, economic status, sexuality, or religion.

The government is in the unique position of being able to protect individual rights and keep the wealthy and powerful from having their way with average Joe.
 
2013-12-08 05:57:48 PM  
Three politics greenlights and they're the Moonie Times, some booger-eater's blog, and the blindingly idiotic New York Post. A veritable trifecta of derp. Well done, troll.com!
 
2013-12-08 05:58:00 PM  

whidbey: Ned Stark: Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.

Oh the "Hurr durr they had a Supermajority" lie again.

Old trolls are so exciting.


I am sure you can direct me to where I claimed anyone had a super majority.

I'll wait.
 
2013-12-08 05:59:46 PM  

Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.

Oh the "Hurr durr they had a Supermajority" lie again.

Old trolls are so exciting.

I am sure you can direct me to where I claimed anyone had a super majority.

I'll wait.


Wait for what? More abuse? Condemnation?
 
2013-12-08 06:00:39 PM  
Dear Democrats:

Please start acting like the lockstep Marxists we keep claiming you are.  You're making us look bad.

Yours in Christ,

The Tea Party.
 
2013-12-08 06:02:23 PM  

Captain Dan: I want someone who wears being called a oligarch like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 47%, but so what? Fark 'em'.


You really blew it, man. Until this one you sounded clueless but real.
 
2013-12-08 06:03:04 PM  

Great_Milenko: Dear Democrats:

Please start acting like the lockstep Marxists we keep claiming you are.  You're making us look bad.

Yours in Christ,

The Tea Party.


I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.
 
2013-12-08 06:04:26 PM  
FTA: Today's Democratic Party bears little resemblance to the party of Franklyn D. Roosevelt, Michael Goodwin writes.

Yep, only that modern Dems are far more conservative than they used to be. Old-school Dems would have never suggested that social programs need to be cut, especially in hard times.

I thought it was common knowledge that the Dems moved right after the twelve years of Reagan/Bush in order to win.

Do the rightwing pundits know they're lying out their asses about Democrats being super-socialists or do they actually believe it? It's scary that so many conservatives are so disconnected from reality as that never ends well.

/Nixon was more liberal than Obama
 
2013-12-08 06:04:57 PM  

OgreMagi: vygramul: OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.

The military is not a linear proposition.

Don't care. We're spending too much.  How about we stop being the world's police and deal with our problems at home, instead?


Maybe worthwhile for a variety of reasons. I'm interested in cutting the military as well, but there are two things that are true about cuts: 1) there's really no such thing as cutting a little; 2) our philosophy of interaction with the rest of the world needs to change.

You have to formulate a new philosophy of world engagement first and then design the smaller, less expensive military to fit the philosophy. Just cutting will result in us attempting some really stupid shiat resulting in disasters that would make Vietnam look like a happy dream.

If we do this right, the answer is to create the philosophy and then push for that philosophy - the cuts would come naturally because that engagement would require something other than what we have.

/Note: we also have to admit, without reservation, that we will be giving up some substantial advantages and capabilities and hardships will result. The fact that the hardships will sometimes seem quite difficult to live with has to be mitigated by the knowledge that the alternative is worse - something that is very hard to get people to internalize.
 
2013-12-08 06:05:03 PM  

whidbey: Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.

Oh the "Hurr durr they had a Supermajority" lie again.

Old trolls are so exciting.

I am sure you can direct me to where I claimed anyone had a super majority.

I'll wait.

Wait for what? More abuse? Condemnation?


You cant just pick whatever meaning you want for pronouns dude. You have to use context to divine what the author intended. I know its tricky, but that's the way English is. You can do it if you try.
 
2013-12-08 06:05:49 PM  
The Democratic Party is out of Centrists  (SOURCE: NEW YORK POST)

gifrific.com
 
2013-12-08 06:06:21 PM  

Befuddled: /Nixon was more liberal than Obama


Nixon was "liberal" only because the country was falling apart and threatening to riot. I love it when historical revisionists try to paint some kind of compassion into that paranoid wtf President.
 
2013-12-08 06:07:35 PM  
I always rely on the NYPost for sober, judicious analysis of LIBBY LIBS
 
2013-12-08 06:07:36 PM  

Wooly Bully: You really blew it, man. Until this one you sounded clueless but real.


I wasn't trolling for bites, only satirizing TuteTibiImperes' panegyric on "fark the 1%" liberalism.
 
2013-12-08 06:08:08 PM  

Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.

Oh the "Hurr durr they had a Supermajority" lie again.

Old trolls are so exciting.

I am sure you can direct me to where I claimed anyone had a super majority.

I'll wait.

Wait for what? More abuse? Condemnation?

You cant just pick whatever meaning you want for pronouns dude. You have to use context to divine what the author intended. I know its tricky, but that's the way English is. You can do it if you try.


Your entire post was the "hurr durr Supermajority" talking point. Move on.
 
2013-12-08 06:08:46 PM  
"common sense and a strong military"="tax cuts for billionaires and oil wars"
 
2013-12-08 06:09:09 PM  

OgreMagi: Great_Milenko: Dear Democrats:

Please start acting like the lockstep Marxists we keep claiming you are.  You're making us look bad.

Yours in Christ,

The Tea Party.

I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.


There's also a disconnect between the rank-and-file and the party leadership. Leadership is interested in maintaining the status quo or gaining power, and are not interested in the grass roots trying to limit the playing field with what they think it means to be progressive. When the VA Democratic Party intentionally kills a resolution calling for more transparency in, and limitations on, the use of drones, you know that the Party leadership is not exactly all that liberal.
 
2013-12-08 06:09:26 PM  

whidbey: Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.

Oh the "Hurr durr they had a Supermajority" lie again.

Old trolls are so exciting.

I am sure you can direct me to where I claimed anyone had a super majority.

I'll wait.

Wait for what? More abuse? Condemnation?

You cant just pick whatever meaning you want for pronouns dude. You have to use context to divine what the author intended. I know its tricky, but that's the way English is. You can do it if you try.

Your entire post was the "hurr durr Supermajority" talking point. Move on.


Except for never mentioning or implying anything about a supermajority anywhere, sure.
 
2013-12-08 06:09:34 PM  

Captain Dan: If anything, the problem with the Republican Party has been that they've been too moderate, too willing to compromise, and too much on the side of big government and big business.


The Party of No compromises too much? That's just silly.

It's only been in the past few years that the party has grown a spine, as evidenced by the rise of the Tea Party and the election of actual leaders like Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz is not a leader. He's an attention whore who seeks political power purely for his own gain.

I don't want centrists, I want dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who will cut spending when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to promote market competition instead of more government subsidies and redistribution (not that the ACA is as bad as the system liberals really want, but that's more of an indictment against liberalism than praise for the ACA), and will take on Obama, Hollywood, gays, atheists, etc, and roll back regulations that hurt business, outlaw the degrading filth emanating from our TVs and computers, crack down on anti-American speech, deport illegal immigrants, and eliminate the minimum wage to promote job growth.

So you're an anti-single payer/universal health care, anti gay, pro censorship, pro-deregulation, anti free speech, anti-immigrant Republican who wants to reduce the once proud USA to a third world shiat-hole?

Essentially you're everything that's wrong with America.

I want someone who wears being called a oligarch like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 47%, but so what? Fark 'em'.

Well at least you are honest about being a sociopath which put you a step ahead of Cruz,
 
2013-12-08 06:09:53 PM  

OgreMagi: vygramul: OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.

The military is not a linear proposition.

Don't care. We're spending too much.  How about we stop being the world's police and deal with our problems at home, instead?


In this, I can agree. The difficulty is that we've been pretty much sticking our noses in everyone's business since the close of WWII, and the sad fact of the matter is: no one else is going to do much other than sign a strongly worded letter. Unless it has their own citizens in peril directly, most of Europe and the rest of the free world is pretty much content to maybe send some aid workers, and excuses. We have pretty much set the precedent. The only real exception is when the strife and calamity strike near the former Soviet territories or near China. Their client states are pretty much on their own.

It would be nice if the UN could actually step up, but they're not a body in the habit of doing much other than forming some committees and wringing their hands. Which, the US and sometimes a few other nations who happen to have vested interest in an area get impatient with. The Georgian crisis is a good example of this. While a lot of folks hemmed and hawed and wanted to discuss sanctions and stern letters, the Russians simply rolled tanks out across the border to meet the tanks that the Georgians were rolling against dual Russian citizens. Diplomacy in that situation failed miserably--and in fairness, had failed since the Georgians first tried to wipe out the Ossetians from a bit before the Bolshevik Revolution. In this case: the Russians were taking care of a problem for their citizens, while the UN did squat. In Africa, in the former Czech Republic, that didn't really go over so well, until the US decided to dedicate boots on the ground.

We are an impatient people. Sometimes that works against us: we have a higher rate of injury for our firefighters and police than other countries, because of that. Sometimes that impatience means that we actually roll in to stop things before they come to a head. There is a balance point, and we've yet to find it really in our foreign policy, save "follow the money." And that is really what drives the bulk of our overseas actions. Not all. But mostly...
 
2013-12-08 06:10:26 PM  
Doesn't he run a bank?
 
2013-12-08 06:11:43 PM  

Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: whidbey: Ned Stark: Yes just imagine what they could do with the white house and both houses of congress and a reasonably friendly supreme court? Why, the spooks could get their computers unplugged, the tsa could have their cop role-play booted back to their bedrooms, gitmo could be closed, we could have single pa...

Oh wait, they did have that? And what happened? Damn.

Oh the "Hurr durr they had a Supermajority" lie again.

Old trolls are so exciting.

I am sure you can direct me to where I claimed anyone had a super majority.

I'll wait.

Wait for what? More abuse? Condemnation?

You cant just pick whatever meaning you want for pronouns dude. You have to use context to divine what the author intended. I know its tricky, but that's the way English is. You can do it if you try.

Your entire post was the "hurr durr Supermajority" talking point. Move on.

Except for never mentioning or implying anything about a supermajority anywhere, sure.


Or don't. Yelling at clouds doesn't change anything.

The American people should have been fully supporting the Democratic Party the past 5 years, and utterly condemning the Republican obstructionist strategy. Yes, including you. I await your next Fark Independent™ type non-sequitur/denial/no u.
 
2013-12-08 06:12:31 PM  
How well I remember the Moynihan era, when NYP consistently praised him for his common sense. He was never castigated as a dangerous commie radical. No sir!
 
2013-12-08 06:13:54 PM  
OgreMagi:

I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.

Yes, but you're an idiot, so there's that.
 
2013-12-08 06:14:41 PM  
Has anyone mentioned that most Democrats are really Republicans yet?
 
2013-12-08 06:14:50 PM  

vygramul: OgreMagi: vygramul: OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.

The military is not a linear proposition.

Don't care. We're spending too much.  How about we stop being the world's police and deal with our problems at home, instead?

Maybe worthwhile for a variety of reasons. I'm interested in cutting the military as well, but there are two things that are true about cuts: 1) there's really no such thing as cutting a little; 2) our philosophy of interaction with the rest of the world needs to change.

You have to formulate a new philosophy of world engagement first and then design the smaller, less expensive military to fit the philosophy. Just cutting will result in us attempting some really stupid shiat resulting in disasters that would make Vietnam look like a happy dream.

If we do this right, the answer is to create the philosophy and then push for that philosophy - the cuts would come naturally because that engagement would require something other than what we have.

/Note: we also have to admit, without reservation, that we will be giving up some substantial advantages and capabilities and hardships will result. The fact that the hardships will sometimes seem quite difficult to live with has to be mitigated by the knowledge that the alternative is worse - something that is very hard to get people to internalize.


I certainly wouldn't try to cut the budget in half instantly.  That would completely fark up the employment situation with too many of our military people suddenly thrown into a work force that is already hurting.

I would,

1. Start closing bases overseas.  We wouldn't have the "world reach" that we've had since WW2, but that's ok because the new philosophy is "deal with your own problems".
2. Stop building shiat the military doesn't want just because it's built in some powerful senator's state (that's going to be a tough one).
3. Let the number of soldiers reduce naturally by not recruiting so much.

Problems,

1. Some foreign cities are almost entirely dependent upon jobs provided by our military bases.  Sorry, but we can't be responsible for your country.
2. Politicians with too much power are going to fight this every step of the way (and that's both D and R politicians).
3. If a major war broke out and we needed to be involved, we will be slower to react (it took us a while to get troops and equipment to Europe after we joined WW2).
 
2013-12-08 06:17:49 PM  

hubiestubert: It would be nice if the UN could actually step up, but they're not a body in the habit of doing much other than forming some committees and wringing their hands. Which, the US and sometimes a few other nations who happen to have vested interest in an area get impatient with. The Georgian crisis is a good example of this.


I'll say this, though; UN working with the African Union has been doing some pretty good work in Africa.
 
2013-12-08 06:17:50 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: OgreMagi:

I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.

Yes, but you're an idiot, so there's that.


Go read the damn definition of "fascist" and compare it to what the democrats have been doing.  Unlike you, I actually know the definition.
 
2013-12-08 06:21:48 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: jenlen: Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.

Also, the GOP has went completely crazy, too, but not quite in the other direction. That is, they want unlimited power, too.

We're farked.

A stronger government doesn't have to mean less liberty, it can mean more.  A strong government can fight for the people against abuses by corporations so that citizens aren't left without health coverage, with their pensions recklessly gambled away by Wall St bankers, or discriminated against based on their race, economic status, sexuality, or religion.

The government is in the unique position of being able to protect individual rights and keep the wealthy and powerful from having their way with average Joe.


Holy shiat, it's almost like government and corporations affect a  check and balance but because i have an irrational number of chromosomes,

"government BAD!"

/metallica
 
2013-12-08 06:23:00 PM  
/effect even
 
2013-12-08 06:23:14 PM  

whidbey: jenlen: Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.

Grow the fark up.


Go back to your bong and dream of total control of everyone by your government.
 
2013-12-08 06:24:53 PM  

jenlen: whidbey: jenlen: Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.

Grow the fark up.

Go back to your bong and dream of total control of everyone by your government.


absolutism the refuge of the blind
 
2013-12-08 06:27:20 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: hubiestubert: It would be nice if the UN could actually step up, but they're not a body in the habit of doing much other than forming some committees and wringing their hands. Which, the US and sometimes a few other nations who happen to have vested interest in an area get impatient with. The Georgian crisis is a good example of this.

I'll say this, though; UN working with the African Union has been doing some pretty good work in Africa.


They have their moments. And if the UN can give cover to other humanitarian efforts, that's fantastic but how long did it take for the body to finally decide to do much of anything?  I mean besides saying, "You go in, fine, but it's your ass if you do" for how many years?
 
2013-12-08 06:28:46 PM  
Sorry douchebag NY Post hack. These neoliberals you call "socialists" and "Marxists" are. in fact centrists. True progressives are unfortunately about as rare as chicken's teeth these days.
 
2013-12-08 06:29:54 PM  
Please, subby. The modern Democratic Party is nothing but centrists, including the President who didn't even make a perfunctory effort to get a single payer healthcare system when he had a supermajority in both houses. The Dems are so cozy with their corporate friends that we basically have two Republican parties.
 
2013-12-08 06:31:27 PM  
If asked, I'd bet most Americans couldn't accurately describe liberal political positions. Not that they're in danger of being asked.
 
2013-12-08 06:32:53 PM  

shamanwest: Doesn't he run a bank?


That's Brian Moynihan.
 
2013-12-08 06:36:41 PM  

OgreMagi: 3. If a major war broke out and we needed to be involved, we will be slower to react (it took us a while to get troops and equipment to Europe after we joined WW2).


I'll point out that this one is a big problem, bigger than before. As Eisenhower said in his farewell speech, military technology has evolved to the point we can no longer improvise a defense and we HAVE to have a significant arms industry. You simply do not have time once the war starts anymore.
 
2013-12-08 06:38:54 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: TuteTibiImperes: Wow, there's so much wrong in that piece I don't even know where to begin.

If anything, the problem with the Democratic party has been that they've been too moderate, to willing to compromise, and too much on the side of Wall St, Hollywood, and other big business interests.

It's only been in the last year or so that the party has apparently grown a spine, as seen by the handling of the shutdown situation and the nuclear option regarding senate filibusters.

I don't want centrists, I want dyed-in-the-wool liberals who will pull us out of wars when they say they will, revamp the health insurance industry to benefit the people through single payer instead of to benefit insurance companies like the ACA (not that the ACA isn't better than what we had before, but that's more of an indictment against our previous system than praise for the ACA), and will take on Wall Street, Hollywood, Comcast, Walmart, etc, and to give us banking laws that benefit and protect the people, IP and copyright law that builds the public domain back up and protects a broader interpretation of fair use, real net neutrality along with mandatory line sharing for more real competition amongst  ISPs, and a minimum wage that is a living wage.

I want someone who wears being called a socialist like a badge of honor, and who isn't afraid to say 'Yes, this is going to suck for the 1%, but so what? Fark 'em'.

FTFM

Also, I'll say Obama hasn't been a bad president, but so far he really hasn't followed through on his potential either.  He spent far too much of his first term trying to reach across he aisle, and has been gun shy about backing a real liberal agenda outside of social issues.  He's done a good job on gay rights, so I'll give him that, but he could have been so much more.


Gay rights was the one issue the public was ready to support.  The pubic is ALMOST THERE on pot, but pushing that from the top wouldn't work.

We have a president, not a king.  Unfortunately, we also have a parliament populated by jesters, so we're farked.
 
2013-12-08 06:45:15 PM  
As an actual leftist, I think that Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were two of the worst presidents in American history.
 
2013-12-08 06:47:46 PM  

vygramul: OgreMagi: 3. If a major war broke out and we needed to be involved, we will be slower to react (it took us a while to get troops and equipment to Europe after we joined WW2).

I'll point out that this one is a big problem, bigger than before. As Eisenhower said in his farewell speech, military technology has evolved to the point we can no longer improvise a defense and we HAVE to have a significant arms industry. You simply do not have time once the war starts anymore.


I don't think giving up our edge in military technology is the right way to cut defense spending.  We could, however, do a lot to make that process more cost effective.  Holding defense contractors liable when they go over budget or their designs fail to meet performance benchmarks would be a good move.  Fostering the development of more competing firms to help drive those costs down instead of handing out backroom deals based on political connections would also be a great move.  Make the industry a bit more cutthroat so that capitalism can work in it - if Boeing's design for a new fighter doesn't work, they eat the cost to make it right out of their own profits, and their executives miss their bonuses instead of getting more taxpayer dollars and more profits the more they screw up.

Another big way we could save is by changing the way we wage war.  Iraq and Afghanistan were both great examples of why prolonged occupations aren't cost effective or even particularly beneficial in the long term.  Instead of putting tens of thousands of troops on the ground and keeping them there for years, park a couple of carrier battle groups outside and run air and missile strikes until the enemy's defensive infrastructure is destroyed.  Embed some special ops and CIA types in the country with a list of people to take out, and have them do it quietly whenever they pop their heads up.

We'd still need ground troops for certain things, but not nearly as many as we use now, and we wouldn't need to establish long term major installations in war zones.  Get rid of the problem, and let the locals rebuild and clean it up their own way, possibly with CIA agents working behind the scenes to make sure a west-friendly regime is the one that gains power.
 
2013-12-08 06:53:59 PM  

OgreMagi: Satanic_Hamster: OgreMagi:

I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.

Yes, but you're an idiot, so there's that.

Go read the damn definition of "fascist" and compare it to what the democrats have been doing.  Unlike you, I actually know the definition.


The definition of fascist?  You mean on some derper web site that says, "FASCIST: Barack HUSSEIN Obama"?

The Italian fascists and the Nazis both built their power bases with bands of thugs, and no I don't mean ACORN, I mean thugs, with brickbats and knives and guns, and they got into street brawls, and by that, no I don't mean Occupy Wall Street or voter registration drives or peaceful protests, I mean brawls where people were hurt and murdered, blood ran in the streets, and they smashed windows, they set buildings on fire, they extorted, bribed, blackmailed, they used force and violence and thuggery.  They weren't the only ones in Germany doing that, by far (the Communists were just as bad) but this doesn't change the fact that they used thuggery and murder to build a power base.

The Italian fascists were much the same, they used thugger, violence, murder.

Once the Nazis got into power, they immediately passed a law that said that their Leader could, whenever he wished, institute personal rule and ignore the rule of law from then on.  Now, I know you derpers like to believe this is exactly what Barack HUSSEIN Obama has done, but then it's rather hard to explain the government shutdown, because if Barach HUSSEIN Obama had been a fascist, he simply would have Boehner, Cantor and McConnell arrested and sent to a concentration camp, or simply murdered, like Ernst Roehm, and then...

Ah f*ck it.  Here's the short version:  You have shiat for brains and you throw out words and claim you know the definitions in a way that shows embarrassingly well that you have no idea what those words mean.

Try reading a book, moran.
 
2013-12-08 07:01:15 PM  

OgreMagi: vygramul: OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.

The military is not a linear proposition.

Don't care. We're spending too much.  How about we stop being the world's police and deal with our problems at home, instead?



They call them TAX and SPEND Democrats for a reason.    You can't get Democrats to cut anything anywhere.   A Democrat stronghold for example...Philadelphia.   Ask Democrats to close the Philadelphia Navy Yard.      Do it.    Go ask them to close it and redirect the money theoretically to all your favorite Liberal causes.    Windmills, windmills covered in art,  Solar art,  Solar windmills covered in art that homeless welfare recipients can live in with a windmill powered abortion clinic next door.

But they will not do it.     They will talk about it.   Say how it needs to be done.   Rail against repubs regarding it.

But in the end they are all talk...

Dems:
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
reject any compromise
Tax some more & Spend
Tax & Spend

One dimensional party.     There is a reason the US has no budget.
 
2013-12-08 07:05:49 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: vygramul: OgreMagi: 3. If a major war broke out and we needed to be involved, we will be slower to react (it took us a while to get troops and equipment to Europe after we joined WW2).

I'll point out that this one is a big problem, bigger than before. As Eisenhower said in his farewell speech, military technology has evolved to the point we can no longer improvise a defense and we HAVE to have a significant arms industry. You simply do not have time once the war starts anymore.

I don't think giving up our edge in military technology is the right way to cut defense spending.  We could, however, do a lot to make that process more cost effective.  Holding defense contractors liable when they go over budget or their designs fail to meet performance benchmarks would be a good move.  Fostering the development of more competing firms to help drive those costs down instead of handing out backroom deals based on political connections would also be a great move.  Make the industry a bit more cutthroat so that capitalism can work in it - if Boeing's design for a new fighter doesn't work, they eat the cost to make it right out of their own profits, and their executives miss their bonuses instead of getting more taxpayer dollars and more profits the more they screw up.

Another big way we could save is by changing the way we wage war. Iraq and Afghanistan were both great examples of why prolonged occupations aren't cost effective or even particularly beneficial in the long term. Instead of putting tens of thousands of troops on the ground and keeping them there for years, park a couple of carrier battle groups outside and run air and missile strikes until the enemy's defensive infrastructure is destroyed. Embed some special ops and CIA types in the country with a list of people to take out, and have them do it quietly whenever they pop their heads up.

We'd still need ground troops for certain things, but not nearly as many as we use now, and we wouldn't need to establish long term major installations in war zones. Get rid of the problem, and let the locals rebuild and clean it up their own way, possibly with CIA agents working behind the scenes to make sure a west-friendly regime is the one that gains power.


A huge part of our administrative overhead comes from efforts to try to keep contractors in line and to keep things from going over budget and to make sure stuff works as promised. It's probably way past its most efficient return on investment, and still people want more. Defense Acquisition is more Lovecraftian a world than any other to which I have been exposed. The more you learn, the more insane you go.

As far as prolonged occupations go, we're not really cut out for that business anymore. But even to the degree we have been stupid enough to do it, our attempts have been hampered by too small a ground force, not too large a one.
 
2013-12-08 07:09:21 PM  

netcentric: OgreMagi: vygramul: OgreMagi:

One dimensional party.     There is a reason the US has no budget.


"Here's the plan.  We slash taxes, and we also invade Iraq, which was totally behind 9-11, cause, see, if we cut these here taxes, there will be more JERBS, and this Saddam feller has weapons uh mass destruction, this here yellowcake whatsit, and the war's gonna pay fer itself, and ok so we ain't found no weapons yet, but I kin make some jokes about it at a correspondent dinner, but ya still can't take no pitchers uh coffins, an' that Saddam feller was a pretty bad guy, an' hey, the surge worked!  Yay the surge worked!  Uh fellers, I need another one uh them $50 billion supplemental spendin' bill, cause ya know, freedum ain't free, an' now here's this defense feller tuh tell ya that stuff happens.  Now watch this drive."

The GOP:  The Party of Many Dimensions.
 
2013-12-08 07:12:30 PM  

Kibbler: OgreMagi: Satanic_Hamster: OgreMagi:

I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.

Yes, but you're an idiot, so there's that.

Go read the damn definition of "fascist" and compare it to what the democrats have been doing.  Unlike you, I actually know the definition.

The definition of fascist?  You mean on some derper web site that says, "FASCIST: Barack HUSSEIN Obama"?

The Italian fascists and the Nazis both built their power bases with bands of thugs, and no I don't mean ACORN, I mean thugs, with brickbats and knives and guns, and they got into street brawls, and by that, no I don't mean Occupy Wall Street or voter registration drives or peaceful protests, I mean brawls where people were hurt and murdered, blood ran in the streets, and they smashed windows, they set buildings on fire, they extorted, bribed, blackmailed, they used force and violence and thuggery.  They weren't the only ones in Germany doing that, by far (the Communists were just as bad) but this doesn't change the fact that they used thuggery and murder to build a power base.

The Italian fascists were much the same, they used thugger, violence, murder.

Once the Nazis got into power, they immediately passed a law that said that their Leader could, whenever he wished, institute personal rule and ignore the rule of law from then on.  Now, I know you derpers like to believe this is exactly what Barack HUSSEIN Obama has done, but then it's rather hard to explain the government shutdown, because if Barach HUSSEIN Obama had been a fascist, he simply would have Boehner, Cantor and McConnell arrested and sent to a concentration camp, or simply murdered, like Ernst Roehm, and then...

Ah f*ck it.  Here's the short version:  You have shiat for brains and you throw out words and claim you know the definitions in a way that shows embarrassingly well that you have no idea what those words mean.

Try reading a book, moran.


It's this ridiculous strawman the new conservative likes to argue against. The idea that "liberberalism" and "progressive" has fark-all to do with fascism is essentially 100% projection on the part of conservative info-tainers like Rush and Doughy Pantload. As many have noted, the Dems today are hardly what I'd call progressive, but centrism is nowhere near "fascism", either. By this defintion, it sounds a lot closer to some of the American far-right if anything, which makes sense, as fascism is a far-right ideology.

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
 
2013-12-08 07:14:33 PM  

jenlen: whidbey: jenlen: Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.

Grow the fark up.

Go back to your bong and dream of total control of everyone by your government.


I hope your taxes go up.

Because reason isn't going to shake your absurd childish delusions. Maybe paying more towards the social safety net will be just compensation.
 
2013-12-08 07:16:09 PM  

netcentric: OgreMagi: vygramul: OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.

The military is not a linear proposition.

Don't care. We're spending too much.  How about we stop being the world's police and deal with our problems at home, instead?


They call them TAX and SPEND Democrats for a reason.    You can't get Democrats to cut anything anywhere.   A Democrat stronghold for example...Philadelphia.   Ask Democrats to close the Philadelphia Navy Yard.      Do it.    Go ask them to close it and redirect the money theoretically to all your favorite Liberal causes.    Windmills, windmills covered in art,  Solar art,  Solar windmills covered in art that homeless welfare recipients can live in with a windmill powered abortion clinic next door.

But they will not do it.     They will talk about it.   Say how it needs to be done.   Rail against repubs regarding it.

But in the end they are all talk...

Dems:
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
reject any compromise
Tax some more & Spend
Tax & Spend

One dimensional party.     There is a reason the US has no budget.


And the GOP is any different?  The republicans say they are the party of fiscal responsibility, but they've been anything but that for several decades.
 
2013-12-08 07:19:27 PM  

Kibbler: OgreMagi: Satanic_Hamster: OgreMagi:

I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.

Yes, but you're an idiot, so there's that.

Go read the damn definition of "fascist" and compare it to what the democrats have been doing.  Unlike you, I actually know the definition.

The definition of fascist?  You mean on some derper web site that says, "FASCIST: Barack HUSSEIN Obama"?

The Italian fascists and the Nazis both built their power bases with bands of thugs, and no I don't mean ACORN, I mean thugs, with brickbats and knives and guns, and they got into street brawls, and by that, no I don't mean Occupy Wall Street or voter registration drives or peaceful protests, I mean brawls where people were hurt and murdered, blood ran in the streets, and they smashed windows, they set buildings on fire, they extorted, bribed, blackmailed, they used force and violence and thuggery.  They weren't the only ones in Germany doing that, by far (the Communists were just as bad) but this doesn't change the fact that they used thuggery and murder to build a power base.

The Italian fascists were much the same, they used thugger, violence, murder.

Once the Nazis got into power, they immediately passed a law that said that their Leader could, whenever he wished, institute personal rule and ignore the rule of law from then on.  Now, I know you derpers like to believe this is exactly what Barack HUSSEIN Obama has done, but then it's rather hard to explain the government shutdown, because if Barach HUSSEIN Obama had been a fascist, he simply would have Boehner, Cantor and McConnell arrested and sent to a concentration camp, or simply murdered, like Ernst Roehm, and then...

Ah f*ck it.  Here's the short version:  You have shiat for brains and you throw out words and claim you know the definitions in a way that shows embarrassingly well that you have no idea what those words mean.

Try reading a book, moran.


So you don't actually know the definition of fascist.  You've stated how they got into power, but you didn't mention one bit of their platform ideology.

Also, your reading comprehension is severely lacking.  I said, "more like fascists than marxists."  I did not say, "exactly like fascists."
 
2013-12-08 07:20:19 PM  

quatchi: Essentially you're everything that's wrong with America.


Calm down, I wasn't seriously advocating anything.  My hope was that anyone reading the thread would recognize that I was presenting the mirror image of the "we need some real liberals" screed commonly read on Fark.

Almost everyone reading this is left-of-center, so of course they believe that the problem is that the government is too conservative, and that Democrats are too moderate.  But there are just as many people who believe the exact opposite just as intensely.  There are tens of millions of Americans who believe that the government is much too liberal, and that Republicans are too moderate.

The Republican Party has suffered greatly as a result of these people who care more about ideological purity than about the practical limits of governance, or observable reality.  The country too has suffered as a result.  It's been a disaster.

The lesson I hope that people take from the failure of the Tea Party is not the Tea Party sucks but that extremism sucks.  It doesn't work.  All the dreamy "yeah, but if only..." qualifications don't change that.
 
2013-12-08 07:22:41 PM  

netcentric: OgreMagi: vygramul: OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.

The military is not a linear proposition.

Don't care. We're spending too much.  How about we stop being the world's police and deal with our problems at home, instead?


They call them TAX and SPEND Democrats for a reason.    You can't get Democrats to cut anything anywhere.   A Democrat stronghold for example...Philadelphia.   Ask Democrats to close the Philadelphia Navy Yard.      Do it.    Go ask them to close it and redirect the money theoretically to all your favorite Liberal causes.    Windmills, windmills covered in art,  Solar art,  Solar windmills covered in art that homeless welfare recipients can live in with a windmill powered abortion clinic next door.

But they will not do it.     They will talk about it.   Say how it needs to be done.   Rail against repubs regarding it.

But in the end they are all talk...

Dems:
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
Tax & Spend
reject any compromise
Tax some more & Spend
Tax & Spend

One dimensional party.     There is a reason the US has no budget.


The federal payroll under this Democratic president is the lowest it's been in 20 years.  The rate of growth of government is the lowest it's been in 30 years.

I'm ok with what you call "taxing and spending", when the conservative alternative is "borrowing and spending", with ZERO attempt to lowering spending in any meaningful way.
 
2013-12-08 07:27:30 PM  

netcentric: OgreMagi: vygramul: OgreMagi: The GOP is also out of centrists.  Neither party offers anyone I would vote for.

Note, I believe in a strong military, but spending more than all other countries in the world combined seems a bit excessive.

The military is not a linear proposition.

Don't care. We're spending too much.  How about we stop being the world's police and deal with our problems at home, instead?


They call them TAX and SPEND Democrats for a reason.    You can't get Democrats to cut anything anywhere.   A Democrat stronghold for example...Philadelphia.   Ask Democrats to close the Philadelphia Navy Yard.      Do it.    Go ask them to close it and redirect the money theoretically to all your favorite Liberal causes.    Windmills, windmills covered in art,  Solar art,  Solar windmills covered in art that homeless welfare recipients can live in with a windmill powered abortion clinic next door.

But they will not do it.     They will talk about it.   Say how it needs to be done.   Rail against repubs regarding it.



What is this I don't even.
 
2013-12-08 07:29:20 PM  
Can we just agree to ban New York Post links? It makes the Daily Fail look like a shining example of good journalism.
 
2013-12-08 07:38:08 PM  

grumpfuff: Can we just agree to ban New York Post links? It makes the Daily Fail look like a shining example of good journalism.


I'd rather see Fox News Links become paid "featured partner" links first, frankly.
 
2013-12-08 07:44:08 PM  

OgreMagi: So you don't actually know the definition of fascist.


Is this the part where we define fascism so broadly as to include every modern government?
 
2013-12-08 07:46:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: So you don't actually know the definition of fascist.

Is this the part where we define fascism so broadly as to include every modern government?


Especially Obama's. Never mind either Bush, Clinton or Reagan. But probably Carter, too. And yeah, Clinton was probably a fascist, what am I saying.
 
2013-12-08 07:46:54 PM  

Fart_Machine: OgreMagi: So you don't actually know the definition of fascist.

Is this the part where we define fascism so broadly as to include every modern government?


It seems we have arrived.
 
2013-12-08 07:49:10 PM  
yeah... FDR's Democrat party was half southern racists.
 
2013-12-08 07:52:17 PM  
Conservative op-ed formula: 1) take a classic and valid criticism of conservatives (eg. they've gone nutso radical) 2) apply it to liberals 3) fame
 
2013-12-08 07:52:39 PM  
"The Democratic Party is out of Centrists"

Yeah, and the GOP is overrun with RINOs
 
2013-12-08 07:53:14 PM  

goodbomb: Conservative op-ed formula: 1) take a classic and valid criticism of conservatives (eg. they've gone nutso radical) 2) apply it to liberals 3) fame


Of course. Both sides have to be bad. Atheism is a belief, so that means they're just as bad as Christians. I love the contorted "logic."
 
2013-12-08 07:55:06 PM  
I'm afraid you leave me no alternative but to introduce you to two of my associates.
Bruno is almost blind, has to operate wholly by touch.
Klaus is a moron who knows only what he reads in the New York Post.
 
2013-12-08 08:06:32 PM  

Captain Dan: My hope was that anyone reading the thread would recognize that I was presenting the mirror image of the "we need some real liberals" screed commonly read on Fark


Nobody thought that was a "mirror image" of what liberals think because it isn't.

You've been pushing the notion that liberals and conservatives are somehow similar because they're both "too extreme". I believe that you weren't deliberately trolling but come on, man, the BSABSVR thing is a laughable cliche of Republican apologists. If you keep that up, prepare to be taken seriously by absolutely nobody.
 
2013-12-08 08:14:47 PM  

Wooly Bully: Captain Dan: My hope was that anyone reading the thread would recognize that I was presenting the mirror image of the "we need some real liberals" screed commonly read on Fark

Nobody thought that was a "mirror image" of what liberals think because it isn't.

You've been pushing the notion that liberals and conservatives are somehow similar because they're both "too extreme". I believe that you weren't deliberately trolling but come on, man, the BSABSVR thing is a laughable cliche of Republican apologists. If you keep that up, prepare to be taken seriously by absolutely nobody.


From what I've read of his posts, he does believe common sense solutions that liberals believe are as extreme as the socially conservative outdated morality that pervades the modern GOP, so I'm guessing it's the typical jealous and butthurt of "liberal arts" thinking winning over left-brained bootstrappiness.
 
2013-12-08 08:40:55 PM  

Wooly Bully: You've been pushing the notion that liberals and conservatives are somehow similar because they're both "too extreme". I believe that you weren't deliberately trolling but come on, man, the BSABSVR thing is a laughable cliche of Republican apologists. If you keep that up, prepare to be taken seriously by absolutely nobody.


Sorry, I disagree.  An economic platform consisting of "the 1% will pay for most of our spending - BTW fark them" is extreme, innumerate, and based more on emotional grievances than on reasoned analysis.

whidbey: From what I've read of his posts, he does believe common sense solutions that liberals believe are as extreme as the socially conservative outdated morality that pervades the modern GOP, so I'm guessing it's the typical jealous and butthurt of "liberal arts" thinking winning over left-brained bootstrappiness.


First off, every single person, no matter their beliefs, is convinced that their beliefs are common sense.  So let's retire that meaningless phrase from our discourse.

Next, if you've read my posts, you'll notice that I favor of a roughly equal number of liberal ideas and conservative ideas.  And not just socially liberal/fiscally conservative like many a Fark Independent, but generally centrist in both dimensions.
 
2013-12-08 08:48:40 PM  

Captain Dan: Sorry, I disagree.  An economic platform consisting of "the 1% will pay for most of our spending - BTW fark them" is extreme, innumerate, and based more on emotional grievances than on reasoned analysis.


What this tells me is that you do not know what the Democratic Party's platform is, only what you presume it to be based on extrapolating from a few things you might have heard here and there.
 
2013-12-08 08:50:59 PM  

Captain Dan: whidbey: From what I've read of his posts, he does believe common sense solutions that liberals believe are as extreme as the socially conservative outdated morality that pervades the modern GOP, so I'm guessing it's the typical jealous and butthurt of "liberal arts" thinking winning over left-brained bootstrappiness.

First off, every single person, no matter their beliefs, is convinced that their beliefs are common sense.  So let's retire that meaningless phrase from our discourse.


It's hardly "meaningless." Pretty much every progressive proposal these days, from green energy to heath care reform is "common sense." You're the one conflating the methodology as "extremist."

And no way is Fear of Gay Marriage "common sense." It's delusional, mean-spirited and selfish. So is the hatred of the poor that conservatives often flaunt. So yeah, you're using false equivalence again, and it's bullshiat.

Next, if you've read my posts, you'll notice that I favor of a roughly equal number of liberal ideas and conservative ideas. And not just socially liberal/fiscally conservative like many a Fark Independent, but generally centrist in both dimensions.

See above. You are unable to admit that modern conservatism is the extremist position in our society.
 
2013-12-08 09:01:27 PM  
So since this is the NY Post we're talking about, "centrist" really means a Republican?
 
2013-12-08 09:11:56 PM  
 
2013-12-08 09:13:28 PM  

Cheesus: shamanwest: Doesn't he run a bank?

That's Brian Moynihan.


No, thats the guy who played Chris Farley's dad in Tommy Boy.

You're thinking of Brian Doyle Murray.
 
2013-12-08 09:16:24 PM  
quatchi:

[overtonwindow]

Glenn Beck was right! Far right!
 
2013-12-08 09:18:04 PM  
Oh look! The New York Compost (owned by Rupert Murdoch) has it's panties in a knot again.

I really, really do hope that this new liberal Mayor they're whining about will be every bit the liberal nightmare that they dread he will be. Anything that makes conservatives miserable is it's own good enough reason.
 
2013-12-08 09:19:18 PM  
 
2013-12-08 09:22:30 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Oh look! The New York Compost (owned by Rupert Murdoch) has it's panties in a knot again.


They should just stick to taking pictures of people committing suicide.

i.huffpost.com
 
2013-12-08 09:23:10 PM  

Captain Dan: Wooly Bully: You've been pushing the notion that liberals and conservatives are somehow similar because they're both "too extreme". I believe that you weren't deliberately trolling but come on, man, the BSABSVR thing is a laughable cliche of Republican apologists. If you keep that up, prepare to be taken seriously by absolutely nobody.

Sorry, I disagree.  An economic platform consisting of "the 1% will pay for most of our spending - BTW fark them" is extreme, innumerate, and based more on emotional grievances than on reasoned analysis.


Nobody is saying that they'll pay for everything, and yes, there is a bit of emotional grievance thrown in.  The wealthy have spent decades using their influence to rig the game in their favor such that they pay less a percentage of their income in real terms in taxes compared to the poor, they've vilified unions and fought against workers' rights, and achieved deregulation such that startups and small businesses often can't compete with billionaire-backed firms.  So yes, I'd like to see them get their comeuppance.

On a more practical side though, their actions have been bad for the majority of people in this country, and bad for the country itself.  They've used their wealth to control much of the political discourse, and knocking them off of their pedestal won't be easy, but a truly liberal populist movement with enough momentum could do it.  I'm not saying we need to bring out the guillotines, but we should do things like remove the income cap on social security and medicare taxes, increase the taxes on capital gains, close loopholes that allow corporations to move profits offshore, raise the top income tax bracket, and write legislation enhancing the power of the employee in the workplace and giving unions their teeth back.

I'm not saying that the wealthy should pay for everything, I'm in the middle class and I'd pay more in taxes for universal single payer healthcare, universal post-secondary state funded education, and a new 'new deal' stimulus program to get people working rebuilding out infrastructure.
 
2013-12-08 09:34:32 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: They've used their wealth to control much of the political discourse, and knocking them off of their pedestal won't be easy, but a truly liberal populist movement with enough momentum could do it.


This country desperately needs someone who is wiling to take the people's side in this fight, understands the issues so well that they can't be bullshiatted, and relishes a fight.

A modern Teddy Roosevelt.

I think that person is Elizabeth Warren.
 
2013-12-08 09:52:46 PM  

Mrtraveler01: TV's Vinnie: Oh look! The New York Compost (owned by Rupert Murdoch) has it's panties in a knot again.

They should just stick to taking pictures of people committing suicide.

[i.huffpost.com image 700x758]


So the Post photographer had that woman pose taking a selfie with the jumper in the background?

Seems legit.
 
2013-12-08 09:58:33 PM  
Franklyn?  High quality journalism.
 
2013-12-08 10:04:44 PM  
The Democratic Party is out of Centrists: Pat Moynihan, lion of liberalism but also of common sense and a strong military, must be spinning in his grave

imageshack.us
 
2013-12-08 10:05:58 PM  

jenlen: Progressives recognize almost no limits. They want a bigger government with more power, coming at the expense of individual liberty.

Truest statement ever linked by Fark.


George W. Bush must have been the greatest progressive in history then.
 
2013-12-08 10:08:25 PM  

OgreMagi: Kibbler: OgreMagi: Satanic_Hamster: OgreMagi:

I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.

Yes, but you're an idiot, so there's that.

Go read the damn definition of "fascist" and compare it to what the democrats have been doing.  Unlike you, I actually know the definition.

The definition of fascist?  You mean on some derper web site that says, "FASCIST: Barack HUSSEIN Obama"?

The Italian fascists and the Nazis both built their power bases with bands of thugs, and no I don't mean ACORN, I mean thugs, with brickbats and knives and guns, and they got into street brawls, and by that, no I don't mean Occupy Wall Street or voter registration drives or peaceful protests, I mean brawls where people were hurt and murdered, blood ran in the streets, and they smashed windows, they set buildings on fire, they extorted, bribed, blackmailed, they used force and violence and thuggery.  They weren't the only ones in Germany doing that, by far (the Communists were just as bad) but this doesn't change the fact that they used thuggery and murder to build a power base.

The Italian fascists were much the same, they used thugger, violence, murder.

Once the Nazis got into power, they immediately passed a law that said that their Leader could, whenever he wished, institute personal rule and ignore the rule of law from then on.  Now, I know you derpers like to believe this is exactly what Barack HUSSEIN Obama has done, but then it's rather hard to explain the government shutdown, because if Barach HUSSEIN Obama had been a fascist, he simply would have Boehner, Cantor and McConnell arrested and sent to a concentration camp, or simply murdered, like Ernst Roehm, and then...

Ah f*ck it.  Here's the short version:  You have shiat for brains and you throw out words and claim you know the definitions in a way that shows embarrassingly well that you have no idea what those words mean.

Try reading a book, moran.

So you don't actually know the definition of fascis ...


You're a farking moran, and yes you can accuse me of just name-calling if you want, you can have the last word, but it doesn't change that fact that you're an ignorant farking moran.
 
2013-12-08 10:09:45 PM  

goodbomb: Democrat party


*chug*
 
2013-12-08 10:13:18 PM  

Kibbler: OgreMagi: Kibbler: OgreMagi: Satanic_Hamster: OgreMagi:

I would say the Democrats are acting more like fascists than marxists.

Yes, but you're an idiot, so there's that.

Go read the damn definition of "fascist" and compare it to what the democrats have been doing.  Unlike you, I actually know the definition.

The definition of fascist?  You mean on some derper web site that says, "FASCIST: Barack HUSSEIN Obama"?

The Italian fascists and the Nazis both built their power bases with bands of thugs, and no I don't mean ACORN, I mean thugs, with brickbats and knives and guns, and they got into street brawls, and by that, no I don't mean Occupy Wall Street or voter registration drives or peaceful protests, I mean brawls where people were hurt and murdered, blood ran in the streets, and they smashed windows, they set buildings on fire, they extorted, bribed, blackmailed, they used force and violence and thuggery.  They weren't the only ones in Germany doing that, by far (the Communists were just as bad) but this doesn't change the fact that they used thuggery and murder to build a power base.

The Italian fascists were much the same, they used thugger, violence, murder.

Once the Nazis got into power, they immediately passed a law that said that their Leader could, whenever he wished, institute personal rule and ignore the rule of law from then on.  Now, I know you derpers like to believe this is exactly what Barack HUSSEIN Obama has done, but then it's rather hard to explain the government shutdown, because if Barach HUSSEIN Obama had been a fascist, he simply would have Boehner, Cantor and McConnell arrested and sent to a concentration camp, or simply murdered, like Ernst Roehm, and then...

Ah f*ck it.  Here's the short version:  You have shiat for brains and you throw out words and claim you know the definitions in a way that shows embarrassingly well that you have no idea what those words mean.

Try reading a book, moran.

So you don't actually know the definition ...


I am accusing you of being ignorant of the full definition of "fascism".  Nothing you have said has changed this opinion.
 
2013-12-08 10:36:42 PM  
OgreMagi:  I am accusing you of being ignorant of the full definition of "fascism".  Nothing you have said has changed this opinion.

Because the marriage of nationalism with corporatism is so typically a "Lefty" position...

The charges of authoritarianism isn't entirely unfounded--with the charge for social justice in SOME cases--but the problem with the application of "Fascism" lobbed towards the Left in this country is that it isn't bound up in a bonding of state and corporate interests, nor is it tied to a hypernationalism nor a authoritarian love of the military state.

The Left in this country do have some socialist tendencies, but that isn't a natural leaning towards the hypernationalist binding of state and business that occur in Fascist states. The convenient conflation comes from that pesky "Socialst" portion of National Socialist that was the Nazi party, and they themselves were virulently opposed to anything looking like the lefty communal state. Mussolini himself described Fascism as a rightist movement, and that totalitarianism manifested itself in melding of state interest, and a party system that favored only select elements, and is very much the antithesis of the egalitarianism that typifies the Left, and the foundations of Fascism have deep roots in social Conservatism.

The only person who really seems to not understand this, is yourself. Not the history, not the movement, not even the theory, underlying Fascism.
 
2013-12-08 10:48:55 PM  

hubiestubert: OgreMagi:  I am accusing you of being ignorant of the full definition of "fascism".  Nothing you have said has changed this opinion.

Because the marriage of nationalism with corporatism is so typically a "Lefty" position...

The charges of authoritarianism isn't entirely unfounded--with the charge for social justice in SOME cases--but the problem with the application of "Fascism" lobbed towards the Left in this country is that it isn't bound up in a bonding of state and corporate interests, nor is it tied to a hypernationalism nor a authoritarian love of the military state.

The Left in this country do have some socialist tendencies, but that isn't a natural leaning towards the hypernationalist binding of state and business that occur in Fascist states. The convenient conflation comes from that pesky "Socialst" portion of National Socialist that was the Nazi party, and they themselves were virulently opposed to anything looking like the lefty communal state. Mussolini himself described Fascism as a rightist movement, and that totalitarianism manifested itself in melding of state interest, and a party system that favored only select elements, and is very much the antithesis of the egalitarianism that typifies the Left, and the foundations of Fascism have deep roots in social Conservatism.

The only person who really seems to not understand this, is yourself. Not the history, not the movement, not even the theory, underlying Fascism.


We do have a bonding of the state and corporations.  Big business pretty much owns Congress, though in traditional fascism it is typically the other way around.  It's a toxic marriage that is hurting the people while enriching the people in power.  We also have the government basically tossing out our rule of law and using "national security" as a catch all to do whatever they want, e.g. secret courts, indefinite detention, massive surveillance of the citizens, detaining and searching without probably cause, confiscation of property without due process, etc.  No, we don't have the extreme nationalism associated with fascism.  But I did same "more similar" not "exactly like".  Our government is becoming more fascist each year, and I blame both parties, not just whomever is in power at the moment.
 
2013-12-08 10:50:55 PM  
The Democratic Party has gone so far left

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-08 11:08:11 PM  
OgreMagi:  We do have a bonding of the state and corporations.  Big business pretty much owns Congress, though in traditional fascism it is typically the other way around.  It's a toxic marriage that is hurting the people while enriching the people in power.  We also have the government basically tossing out our rule of law and using "national security" as a catch all to do whatever they want, e.g. secret courts, indefinite detention, massive surveillance of the citizens, detaining and searching without probably cause, confiscation of property without due process, etc.  No, we don't have the extreme nationalism associated with fascism.  But I did same "more similar" not "exactly like".  Our government is becoming more fascist each year, and I blame both parties, not just whomever is in power at the moment.

In this we can agree. The Corporatism that infects this country IS an issue. But it's NOT a brand of melding of state and government that the Left in this country is waving a flag for. And THAT is what folks are taking you to task for and given the degree of projection that folks like Jonah Goldberg have done to promote this idea of "Liberal Fascism," can you agree that some of their take on your assessment has some traction?

The knee jerk tossing of "Fascism" against ANY form of authoritarian elements in government is a misnomerization that allows folks to hide their agendas behind these errors. There are far more forms of authoritarian governments than just Fascism, and it would be nice if folks acknowledged that, instead of shaking the boogeyman at others...
 
2013-12-08 11:20:23 PM  

hubiestubert: The knee jerk tossing of "Fascism" against ANY form of authoritarian elements in government is a misnomerization that allows folks to hide their agendas behind these errors. There are far more forms of authoritarian governments than just Fascism, and it would be nice if folks acknowledged that, instead of shaking the boogeyman at others...


"Shaking the Boogeyman" -- that was Kool and the Gang, right?
 
2013-12-08 11:31:42 PM  
If you think the Left in this country has gone further left,  please, list just what in the heck you're talking about.

It's the least you could do and since you won't find any, maybe you could rip off some of those calendar sheets and join us in 2013?

-concerned citizen
 
2013-12-08 11:40:16 PM  

DrBenway: hubiestubert: The knee jerk tossing of "Fascism" against ANY form of authoritarian elements in government is a misnomerization that allows folks to hide their agendas behind these errors. There are far more forms of authoritarian governments than just Fascism, and it would be nice if folks acknowledged that, instead of shaking the boogeyman at others...

"Shaking the Boogeyman" -- that was Kool and the Gang, right?


Parliament, mang. Parliament.
 
2013-12-08 11:54:49 PM  

sobriquet by any other name: If you think the Left in this country has gone further left,  please, list just what in the heck you're talking about.

It's the least you could do and since you won't find any, maybe you could rip off some of those calendar sheets and join us in 2013?

-concerned citizen


I suspect it's because the left has embraced gay rights more openly and strongly than before, and one could argue that the left was not insignificantly against drug legalization before.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what else someone could come up with.
 
2013-12-09 02:42:30 AM  

Captain Dan: Calm down, I wasn't seriously advocating anything.  My hope was that anyone reading the thread would recognize that I was presenting the mirror image of the "we need some real liberals" screed commonly read on Fark.


Yeah, I figured that out later.

Post in haste, repent in leisure and all that.

I thought it seemed way off one of your usual posts but I went with Poe's Law over Occam. My bad.
 
2013-12-09 02:58:04 AM  
More penetrating political analysis from the New York Post.
Thanks, Obama.
 
2013-12-09 05:18:48 AM  

hubiestubert: The Corporatism that infects this country IS an issue. But it's NOT a brand of melding of state and government that the Left in this country is waving a flag for.


Which ignores reality.

What recently happened when the banks got caught foreclosing on homes using fraudulent documents in all fifty states?

Oh, yea. Unanimous votes to change the law so they could not be punished.

A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

Questions about improper notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and led to widespread halts of foreclosure proceedings.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters in an interview that the law would weaken protection of homeowners by requiring many states to accept lower standards for notarizations.

She said it was "suspicious" that the law unexpectedly passed just as the mortgage industry is facing possible big costs from having filed false or improperly notarized documents.

The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill's existence on September 27, the day before the Senate recessed for midterm election campaign.

The bill's approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn't acted on it.

The full Senate then immediately passed the bill without debate, by unanimous consent.


However, tell us more bout how it's not Corporatacracy when the left does it.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-12-09 05:29:46 AM  

BullBearMS: However, tell us more bout how it's not Corporatacracy when the left does it.


What left?
 
2013-12-09 05:34:04 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: BullBearMS: However, tell us more bout how it's not Corporatacracy when the left does it.

What left?


LOL... OK, fine. The Democrats.

The left would be Bernie Sanders, but he's no longer willing to even call himself a Democrat.
 
2013-12-09 06:11:00 AM  
Obama is the best Republican in decades.
 
2013-12-09 06:51:47 AM  
Centrist Democrats? Aren't they already extinct?


Sorry to disappoint ya right wing journalist, but we're still here.  We're on life support and surrounded by wackos, but we're still alive.
 
2013-12-09 08:27:20 AM  

theknuckler_33: hubiestubert: Wall of text

Dude, I almost always agree with your comments, but you should consider trying to be more concise.


That's exactly why Hubie is the only farker on my "favorites" list. He doesn't deal only in soundbites.
 
2013-12-09 09:12:54 AM  

mksmith: theknuckler_33: hubiestubert: Wall of text

Dude, I almost always agree with your comments, but you should consider trying to be more concise.

That's exactly why Hubie is the only farker on my "favorites" list. He doesn't deal only in soundbites.


As another person with Hubie in my fav's list, I will point out that brevity is the soul of wit. Just because someone is concise doesn't mean they're using soundbites. That's not to say that Hubie expounding on issues is a bad thing, but there are times when such exposition is less effective despite being more complete.
 
2013-12-09 09:15:50 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: goodbomb: Democrat party

*chug*


oh yeah.
 
2013-12-09 09:20:14 AM  

BullBearMS: hubiestubert: The Corporatism that infects this country IS an issue. But it's NOT a brand of melding of state and government that the Left in this country is waving a flag for.

Which ignores reality.

What recently happened when the banks got caught foreclosing on homes using fraudulent documents in all fifty states?

Oh, yea. Unanimous votes to change the law so they could not be punished.

A bill that homeowners advocates warn will make it more difficult to challenge improper foreclosure attempts by big mortgage processors is awaiting President Barack Obama's signature after it quietly zoomed through the Senate last week.

The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents.

The timing raised eyebrows, coming during a rising furor over improper affidavits and other filings in foreclosure actions by large mortgage processors such as GMAC, JPMorgan and Bank of America.

Questions about improper notarizations have figured prominently in challenges to the validity of these court documents, and led to widespread halts of foreclosure proceedings.

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told Reuters in an interview that the law would weaken protection of homeowners by requiring many states to accept lower standards for notarizations.

She said it was "suspicious" that the law unexpectedly passed just as the mortgage industry is facing possible big costs from having filed false or improperly notarized documents.

The legislation could protect bank and mortgage processors from liability for false or improperly prepared documents.

After languishing for months in the Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill passed the Senate with lightning speed and with hardly any public awareness of the bill's existence on September 27, the day befor ...


Thank you for illustrating my point.

Corporatism IS a large issue: but it's NOT the Fascism that you have been conflating with the Left. Simply calling something that IS a problem doesn't make it so. Had you used at least the broad powers that US PATRIOT brought together, you would have made a stronger argument--but again, those security elements are all pieces of legislation that have been floating around in Republican bills for ten years previous.
 
2013-12-09 10:00:30 AM  
Hmmm... I guess it's all about perspective.  Or in this case, the writer's utter lack of it.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-12-09 10:11:21 AM  

BullBearMS: However, tell us more bout how it's not Corporatacracy when the left does it.


Liking ONE agenda item is NOT the same as liking all agenda items.  This is a fact that those on the rabid side of the Right seem to have forgotten.

I like the fact that Obama has (attempted to) stand up for the victims of the current right wing witch hunts, but his rabid corporatism is a downer.
 
2013-12-09 10:37:31 AM  

Ned Stark: Centrists are far to radical for the democratic party.


WTF? You do realize that most of the Obama points are outright fiction, don't you?
 
2013-12-09 10:47:31 AM  

hubiestubert: Corporatism IS a large issue: but it's NOT the Fascism that you have been conflating with the Left.


No, the Fascism part comes in with the constant spying on everyone, the NDAA allowing due process free imprisonments, killing citizens without due process, the militarization of the police, having the FBI work with banks to spy on occupy protestors.

Those sorts of things.
 
2013-12-09 11:08:01 AM  

BullBearMS: hubiestubert: Corporatism IS a large issue: but it's NOT the Fascism that you have been conflating with the Left.

No, the Fascism part comes in with the constant spying on everyone, the NDAA allowing due process free imprisonments, killing citizens without due process, the militarization of the police, having the FBI work with banks to spy on occupy protestors.

Those sorts of things.


Meh.

Constant spying = authoritarian
NDAA allowing due process free imprisonments = authoritarian
Killing citizens without due process = authoritarian
Police militarization = authoritarian
FBI work with Banks to spy on Occupy protestors = a healthy mix of authoritarian and facist policies

You'll notice that most of what you've listed as fascist are techniques for populace control that aren't unique to either the left or the right side of the political spectrum.  The Soviets used similar tactics to the Nazis, they just had a different rationalization for them.

That being said, in general, Dems are generally less authoritarian than the GOP... but I wouldn't want either running my country.
 
2013-12-09 11:16:17 AM  

BullBearMS: hubiestubert: Corporatism IS a large issue: but it's NOT the Fascism that you have been conflating with the Left.

No, the Fascism part comes in with the constant spying on everyone, the NDAA allowing due process free imprisonments, killing citizens without due process, the militarization of the police, having the FBI work with banks to spy on occupy protestors.

Those sorts of things.


I apologize, I realize that I replied to your post as if it were a continuation of the discussion with OgreMagi. Yours is a different brand of conflation towards Fascism, and to be fair, it is perhaps a better argument than painting the Left as tending towards totalitarianism. Yours at least recognizes that Corporatists are working both parties to expand their domain and rights.

It still lacks in the rampant nationalism that provides the basis for the joining of the nation as One True--to borrow from John Barnes. That is NOT to say that the rush to allow Corporate interests is "better" when it's the Democrats, or "worse" when the Republicans do it. It IS perhaps the main driving force behind the Centerization of Democrats, and is certainly the driving force behind the radicalization of the Right, to swallow ANYTHING that Murdoch and his ilk suggest. And oddly enough, tend to leave out of their financial news. Which is likewise true of what NPR tends to gloss over.

The problem with the Fascist argument is that there is NOT a single identity behind these movements. There are disparate elements who all feel that America is losing its way, on the Right you have Real America, and Faux America haters, on the "Left"--which is really more the Right-Centerist Democrats--you have pragmatists who simply want to keep getting elected and keep the PROPER craziness out of the process. It isn't good, because big money in politics has led to some dark places, the same as what has happened with the shackling of the media to corporate sponsors, and that includes even NPR now as they have to scramble for "generous contributions" from large donors.

It is, less about Fascism, than a rush towards NeoFeudalism, with Corporate interests taking the place of landed gentry, and less about nations, than compounds of interests with their financial influence as their moats and castles. Folks want to be on the right side of those walls, and rushing to shore up their new masters, but let's not conflate that NeoFeudalism with Fascism, because it allows far too much wiggle room for folks to then draw up righteous indignation for being falsely accused. Instead, we need to point fingers, and promote action, to help root out this festering pustule that mars our governing process.
 
2013-12-09 11:36:22 AM  

d23: BullBearMS: However, tell us more bout how it's not Corporatacracy when the left does it.

Liking ONE agenda item is NOT the same as liking all agenda items.  This is a fact that those on the rabid side of the Right seem to have forgotten.

I like the fact that Obama has (attempted to) stand up for the victims of the current right wing witch hunts, but his rabid corporatism is a downer.


You can complain about how our government is controlled by corporate interests all you want, but it ultimately our fault--the people--for allowing it.

I mean even here on Fark, there is almost violent disagreement as to what constitutes corporate tyranny.

The President, like it or not, is attuned to the loudest voices, and right now, thanks to Citizens United, money is the loudest voice.

That's the real downer here, not "OMG Obama is a corporate whore."
 
Displayed 179 of 179 comments

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