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 67
    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 (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-12-08 01:20:14 PM
17 votes:
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 12:05:01 PM
9 votes:
Wow. Check out the crazy on that guy. Modern Democrats are 90's Republicans.
2013-12-08 02:38:24 PM
8 votes:
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 02:12:22 PM
7 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-08 12:25:37 PM
5 votes:
So there are nothing but moderate conservatives in the Democratic party?
2013-12-08 02:57:12 PM
4 votes:

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 09:23:10 PM
3 votes:

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 06:53:59 PM
3 votes:

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 06:29:54 PM
3 votes:
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 04:17:52 PM
3 votes:
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 04:16:54 PM
3 votes:
www.animated-gifs.eu
2013-12-08 02:40:34 PM
3 votes:

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 10:48:55 PM
2 votes:

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 09:18:04 PM
2 votes:
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 09:01:27 PM
2 votes:
So since this is the NY Post we're talking about, "centrist" really means a Republican?
2013-12-08 07:22:41 PM
2 votes:

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 05:57:00 PM
2 votes:

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 05:52:08 PM
2 votes:

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 05:51:56 PM
2 votes:

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 05:50:56 PM
2 votes:

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 04:30:00 PM
2 votes:
We get it, he's black.
2013-12-08 02:50:16 PM
2 votes:
Centrist Democrats, otherwise known as Republicans.
Centrist Republicans, otherwise known as unicorns.
2013-12-08 02:48:36 PM
2 votes:

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 02:34:57 PM
2 votes:
Today on Republican Projection Theater
2013-12-09 11:16:17 AM
1 votes:

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.
2013-12-08 10:50:55 PM
1 votes:
The Democratic Party has gone so far left

i.imgur.com
2013-12-08 10:36:42 PM
1 votes:
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 10:08:25 PM
1 votes:

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 10:04:44 PM
1 votes:
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 09:34:32 PM
1 votes:

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 09:22:30 PM
1 votes:

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 08:50:59 PM
1 votes:

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 08:48:40 PM
1 votes:

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 07:52:17 PM
1 votes:
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 07:12:30 PM
1 votes:

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 07:09:21 PM
1 votes:

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 06:47:46 PM
1 votes:

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 06:45:15 PM
1 votes:
As an actual leftist, I think that Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were two of the worst presidents in American history.
2013-12-08 06:36:41 PM
1 votes:

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 06:24:53 PM
1 votes:

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 06:14:50 PM
1 votes:

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 06:14:41 PM
1 votes:
Has anyone mentioned that most Democrats are really Republicans yet?
2013-12-08 06:13:54 PM
1 votes:
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 06:11:43 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:34 PM
1 votes:

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 06:08:46 PM
1 votes:
"common sense and a strong military"="tax cuts for billionaires and oil wars"
2013-12-08 06:06:21 PM
1 votes:

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 06:05:49 PM
1 votes:
The Democratic Party is out of Centrists  (SOURCE: NEW YORK POST)

gifrific.com
2013-12-08 05:57:48 PM
1 votes:
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 05:57:32 PM
1 votes:

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 05:50:51 PM
1 votes:

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 05:49:16 PM
1 votes:
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 05:46:26 PM
1 votes:

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 05:46:09 PM
1 votes:
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 05:44:41 PM
1 votes:

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 05:43:54 PM
1 votes:

Captain Dan: BSABSVR

2013-12-08 05:38:07 PM
1 votes:
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 05:33:03 PM
1 votes:
eat a farking dick submitter
2013-12-08 05:20:59 PM
1 votes:

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 05:19:36 PM
1 votes:
Centrists are far to radical for the democratic party.

imageshack.us
2013-12-08 05:18:35 PM
1 votes:
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 05:06:36 PM
1 votes:

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 05:06:10 PM
1 votes:
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 04:53:46 PM
1 votes:
There's no left left on the left but the far left?

[ohwaityou'reserious]

[hahaohwow]

[overtonwindow]
2013-12-08 04:41:56 PM
1 votes:

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 04:31:40 PM
1 votes:
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 04:30:36 PM
1 votes:
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!!"
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report