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 (37 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 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.
 
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