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  
•       •       •

1330 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Dec 2013 at 4:13 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report