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.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash US Supreme Court: The Constitution created a plutocracy, duh   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 815
    More: NewsFlash, Supreme Court, plutocracy  
•       •       •

18208 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 04:24:45 PM  

Jha: Putting a limit on campaign contributions is anti-freedom.

So many freedom haters on Fark, which is the status-quo.


I'm not sure if you're joking or or trolling or what, but I'll play along as if you were being completely serious.

The issue is, essentially, about the distribution of power.  It's analogous to the compromise reached with the number of representatives and senators per state.  Every state in the USA gets two senators, but the number of representatives depends on the population.  This compromise was reached because people couldn't agree on which system (every state gets the same number versus states with larger population gets more) was more fair.  It was a zero-sum game: giving more power to one state entailed taking power away from every other state.  Having a little of both was a compromise everyone could live with.

This issue is similar: it's really a question of whether each person should have the same amount of political power, or if people with more money should have more political power than people with less.  Sure, you can call it "freedom," but that's really missing the point.  Repealing all laws against sexual assault and letting anybody rape anyone they wanted without penalty would increase "sexual freedom."  But it's not the kind of "freedom" that any sane person wants, or any just society should have.

It's more honest to call it a move to tie political power to the dollar rather than to the individual.  That's far more relevant than arguing over which side is the side of "freedom."
 
2014-04-02 04:25:36 PM  

Phinn: Loadmaster: sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

Loadmaster: People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.
That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.

sendtodave: I guess we operate under the pretense that our representatives actually represent our interests, and not their own.

Smart voters vote for representatives whose interests come closest to their own interests.

Politics is a contest of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.

I can't believe the Prog butthurt on display today. It's sweet to drink in the tears, but kind of sad at the same time -- emotional children who sincerely believe the whole "voting" story about "representatives" and "democracy."

It's like seeing a 10 year-old learning there's no Santa.


2.bp.blogspot.com

= you
 
2014-04-02 04:27:26 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Phinn: Loadmaster: sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

Loadmaster: People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.
That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.

sendtodave: I guess we operate under the pretense that our representatives actually represent our interests, and not their own.

Smart voters vote for representatives whose interests come closest to their own interests.

Politics is a contest of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.

I can't believe the Prog butthurt on display today. It's sweet to drink in the tears, but kind of sad at the same time -- emotional children who sincerely believe the whole "voting" story about "representatives" and "democracy."

It's like seeing a 10 year-old learning there's no Santa.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]

= you


Well, seeing as Phinn seems to be a RWA, it's no surprise that he considers democracy as a dead end to running a society, even a democratic republic such as what we still presently have.
 
2014-04-02 04:27:50 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Phinn: Loadmaster: sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

Loadmaster: People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.
That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.

sendtodave: I guess we operate under the pretense that our representatives actually represent our interests, and not their own.

Smart voters vote for representatives whose interests come closest to their own interests.

Politics is a contest of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.

I can't believe the Prog butthurt on display today. It's sweet to drink in the tears, but kind of sad at the same time -- emotional children who sincerely believe the whole "voting" story about "representatives" and "democracy."

It's like seeing a 10 year-old learning there's no Santa.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]

= you


What the hell is that? Use your words.
 
2014-04-02 04:29:37 PM  

MrBallou: Churchy LaFemme: SO now it's a giant money war where we all feel compelled to combat the other side's money with our own money.  Millions and billions thrown away in a political pissing match.

What an incredible economic waste...

All that money goes into the economy, so technically it's not "wasted". Advertisers, event managers, I don't know who else, all profit. This actually helps spread the wealth and stimulates the economy.

Fun to think that the Kochs' big spending on propaganda and real efforts to stymie the Recovery under Obama probably help speed it up.


It goes to already wealthy media companies.
 
2014-04-02 04:30:03 PM  

FlashHarry: In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.


From that article:  "6% of Super PAC funding came from unions, the fourth largest source."  Unpossible.  Union Thugs are teh evul.
 
2014-04-02 04:31:18 PM  

SphericalTime: Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."

Really? I think that's exactly what it farking means.


Exactly. I guarantee that if I gave $1,000,000 to my local congresscritter's campaign they would not only clear their schedule to see me whenever I wanted, but the steak and BJ's would be on them. Or from them. Whatever.

Joe and Jane Schmuckatelli, ordinary citizens who just, you know, VOTE, will not get this perk. Ever. They will be fortunate to get a form letter or e-mail when requesting any contact whatsoever.
 
2014-04-02 04:33:41 PM  

suebhoney: All I can do is VOTE.

Bullshiat. You can organize. You can protest. You can advertise boycotts. You can start alternative economic projects. You can do a million things that have far more effect than voting.
 
2014-04-02 04:35:04 PM  

sendtodave: Lando Lincoln: Eh. This country was going down the tubes anyway. May as well hurry the process along. The sooner everything is destroyed the sooner we can start to rebuild.

You think that the rich and powerful having more riches and power, is going to cause the downfall of society?

Have you been paying attention to how humans repeatedly organize themselves over the last 10,000 years?

The rich having more power than you IS society.


It is not American society.
 
2014-04-02 04:36:39 PM  

mediablitz: chapman: Yes. Somebody needs to stop those Koch Bros from spending so much money, I mean just look at this list of top donors and how the Koch Bros insidiously don't even make the top 25:

It's almost... ALMOST like you don't understand reporting laws.

ALMOST. I'm betting you do know about unreported political funding, but hope no one calls you on it.


This isn't the first thread in which chapman's done this.  If it's ignorance, it's willful ignorance in defiance of multiple responses explaining the "error."
 
2014-04-02 04:37:21 PM  

Alphax: sendtodave: Lando Lincoln: Eh. This country was going down the tubes anyway. May as well hurry the process along. The sooner everything is destroyed the sooner we can start to rebuild.

You think that the rich and powerful having more riches and power, is going to cause the downfall of society?

Have you been paying attention to how humans repeatedly organize themselves over the last 10,000 years?

The rich having more power than you IS society.

It is not American society.


You're right.  It's becoming a form of neo-feudalism.
 
2014-04-02 04:37:29 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Phinn: Loadmaster: sendtodave: How will people with no money or power change the world?

Loadmaster: People with no power or money by definition cannot change the world.
That's why representative forms of government were invented. In most instances, by forceful revolution.

sendtodave: I guess we operate under the pretense that our representatives actually represent our interests, and not their own.

Smart voters vote for representatives whose interests come closest to their own interests.

Politics is a contest of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.

I can't believe the Prog butthurt on display today. It's sweet to drink in the tears, but kind of sad at the same time -- emotional children who sincerely believe the whole "voting" story about "representatives" and "democracy."

It's like seeing a 10 year-old learning there's no Santa.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]

= you


I'm more like:

i.imgur.com

But I do like apples.
 
2014-04-02 04:38:49 PM  

RanDomino: suebhoney: All I can do is VOTE.
Bullshiat. You can organize. You can protest. You can advertise boycotts. You can start alternative economic projects. You can do a million things that have far more effect than voting.


And if you have enough money you can organize BIG TIME!
 
2014-04-02 04:41:54 PM  
Sometimes I forget that self-awareness, like humor, isn't a Fark Independent strong suit.

Fortunately they provide daily reminders.
 
2014-04-02 04:46:29 PM  
It's over. The billionaires won. I said this last year. It is confirmed this year.
I am so happy.
 
2014-04-02 04:46:32 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: [i.imgur.com image 250x188][i.imgur.com image 250x188][i.imgur.com image 250x188] [i.imgur.com image 250x188][i.imgur.com image 250x188][i.imgur.com image 250x188] [i.imgur.com image 250x188][i.imgur.com image 250x188][i.imgur.com image 250x188]


THIS.
 
2014-04-02 04:46:39 PM  

sendtodave: DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.

All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."

That's exactly right.

Some people are more equal than others.

Based on money.

We accept that every day.


No. That's fundamentally wrong.
 
2014-04-02 04:46:51 PM  
Although I know it will fall on deaf ears, I'll repeat it again since you fellow Farkers are slow on the uptake...

DON'T HAVE ANY FARKING KIDS ALREADY.

Got it?

DON'T HAVE ANY FARKING KIDS ALREADY.

Comprendes?  Verstehen Sie?

Not having kids will make your life easier.  You'll save a few bucks and actually have a non-impoverished existence.  Better yet, you'll never have to apologize to your kids for bringing them into an increasingly fascist and farked-up society.  And most of all, the less kids we peasants have, the more you are going to fark over the goddam Koch brothers of the world.  Got it?

In the words of Desi Arnaz, lemme esplain:

There's only been one conspiracy in the world, the 0.01% who own 99.99% of everything.  They use all human institutions for their gain, and the biggest institution they use is parenthood.  You poor farkers (and myself) are seen as nothing but an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor and cannon fodder for the rich.  Stop breeding like brainless animals and you'll starve the plutocratic motherfarkers who need you far more than you need them.

Or just pop out more kids--and don't biatch when your kids and grandkids become the slaves of the New World Order...
 
2014-04-02 04:48:39 PM  

d23: And, yes, the Founding Fathers were rich land owners, but they were scared shiatless that someone with MORE money would come in and tell them what to do.


Books.  Historically accurate books. Read some.

That, or possibly rethink your concept of "Founding Fathers."

/history
//it's a biatch
 
2014-04-02 04:52:02 PM  
Bribery ... 100% legal now!
 
2014-04-02 04:52:19 PM  

Alphax: sendtodave: DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.

All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."

That's exactly right.

Some people are more equal than others.

Based on money.

We accept that every day.

No. That's fundamentally wrong.


Then why the hell did we work so hard at being successful for? Certainly not the two weeks off during August.
 
2014-04-02 04:54:32 PM  
I hope this is April fools joke by the Supreme court.....
 
2014-04-02 04:56:36 PM  
The decision did not affect the limit an individual may contribute to a specific candidate, currently $2,600.
But Roberts said an individual should be able to contribute that much to as many candidates as he chooses, which was not allowed by the donation cap.


$2,600?  Now, per candidate?  Is this what all the fuss is about?

"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse."

That sounds like some sound, constitutional logic.  So, there will probably be some people gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes over it.
 
2014-04-02 04:57:50 PM  

Epic Fap Session: Triple Oak: Epic Fap Session: This will do for political donations what legalizing pot has done for pot smokers -

Legalize an activity that is occurring regardless.

Still sucks

Dude. Buying the power in this country is not related to pot.

Okay. So you think that all of the sudden corporations will have an unreasonable amount of influence over our elected officials due to this ruling?

That'll really shake things up from the status quo.


Corporations already had an unreasonable amount of influence. Helping the cause with a decision like this isn't helping to do something about it. It's not a surprising ruling, and it's not a "game-changer" or anything like that... but it's still a step in the wrong direction.
 
2014-04-02 04:58:28 PM  

trappedspirit: The decision did not affect the limit an individual may contribute to a specific candidate, currently $2,600.
But Roberts said an individual should be able to contribute that much to as many candidates as he chooses, which was not allowed by the donation cap.

$2,600?  Now, per candidate?  Is this what all the fuss is about?

"The government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse."

That sounds like some sound, constitutional logic.  So, there will probably be some people gnashing their teeth and rending their clothes over it.


And the government should no more restrict my right to yell fire in a crowded theater anymore then it should restrict my right to voice a political opinions.

That's not how it works since yelling fire in a crowded theater can hurt people.
 
2014-04-02 04:58:31 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Excellent to see that they are stripping down the campaign contribution laws.  I spent my money well.


Seriously, shove it up your a$$.
 
2014-04-02 04:59:50 PM  
Came here looking for liberal butthurt over the SCOTUS deciding that regulations that infringe on the 1st amendment are a bad thing.  Leaving satisfied.

Liberals:  inventing new rights and getting upset at the exercising of rights that are already in the Constitution since who knows when....
 
2014-04-02 05:00:36 PM  
R.A.Danny:
Then why the hell did we work so hard at being successful for? Certainly not the two weeks off during August.

Sadly, I see most people slaving away at a job they hate so they can buy off their fricking mortgage already.

It's an old statistic, but IIRC, the average American worker only earns 40% of what he/she produces.  Subtract out taxes--much of which pays for a bloated military and interest on the USA's massive debt--and the American worker makes even less.  Over the span of a typical 30-year mortgage, only 1/3 of the money actually pays off the principal and the other 2/3 goes into the pocket of some goddam banker.  Until then, you're just renting your house and are only a few mortgage payments away from a foreclosure.

And when you do pay off your house--about the only thing of value you could leave to your kids--then you get sick, often from the work you did for 40 years to pay off your mortgage.  Then you get to sell the house to pay for the ridiculously over-priced medicines made by Big Pharma.  In the end, what did you do other than work yourself into an early grave?  Well, other than make a bunch of billionaire bankers richer, that is...
 
2014-04-02 05:03:00 PM  

MattStafford: DamnYankees: Whoa whoa whoa. Why are we giving the people in the lead an advantage?

How else would you suggest we handle it?  Everyone polling over X gets an equal share?  Everyone on the ballot gets an equal share?  If you set the bar too low, you will get lots of extreme fringe candidates getting money that shouldn't be.  If you set the bar too high, it just reinforces the status quo.  I'm open to suggestions, however, and just made that solution up about 10 minutes ago.


"Everyone polling over X gets an equal share"  has been tossed around before several times.  I haven't ever been able to think of anything that seemed more fair, personally.

Though, personally, I've thought of tweaking it such that candidates who were registered with a party other than the GOP or Democrats would get a little extra.  But you'd have to rule out people with no party affiliation (or else you'd be flooded with "Independents" who were really Republicans or Democrats), and you'd have to determine which parties are "real" parties, and that would be a mess.  It might not be feasible.
 
2014-04-02 05:05:35 PM  

Alphax: sendtodave: Lando Lincoln: Eh. This country was going down the tubes anyway. May as well hurry the process along. The sooner everything is destroyed the sooner we can start to rebuild.

You think that the rich and powerful having more riches and power, is going to cause the downfall of society?

Have you been paying attention to how humans repeatedly organize themselves over the last 10,000 years?

The rich having more power than you IS society.

It is not American society.


When was America not entirely lead by the rich and powerful?  At what point in history?

When was ANY society not lead by the rich and powerful?

Caveat:  If the revolutionaries become rich and powerful, it doesn't count.
 
2014-04-02 05:06:25 PM  

d23: A constitutional convention is a gathering for the purpose of writing a new general constitutional convention is called to create the first constitution of a political unit or to entirely replace an existing constitution. An unlimited constitutional convention is called to revise an existing constitution to the extent that it deems to be proper, whereas a limited constitutional convention is restricted to revising only the areas of the current constitution named in the convention's call, the legal mandate establishing the convention.

We need one, not for the "governmental overreach" bullshiat, but because buying law isn't addressed in our current constitution and needs to be.

Corporations aren't people, and money isn't speech.


Hey now, I like to support the free speech of single working moms one dollar at a time.
 
2014-04-02 05:07:05 PM  

Satan's Bunny Slippers: cchris_39: So those of us still paying taxes get to have a bigger say things. Great news! That's the way it should be.

It will be a good counter balance to the 47% who pay nothing and vote for the party that promises them endless free stuff.

Regurgitating talking points from 2012?  That's sad even for you, mr Internet CFO.


cchris_39 apparently took a nap for 2 years and just woke up a few days ago thinking it was still 2012.
 
2014-04-02 05:07:16 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.

He sounds utterly corrupt.


excessively privileged white dude who also happened to work for gov't in writing cases against roe vs wade?

Corrupt is an understatement. He makes the Koch brothers sound like innocent children.
 
2014-04-02 05:09:27 PM  
Y'know, folks, it's good to see you're weighing in on Fark with your profound thoughts on the SCOTUS' recent ruling.  I'll bet the Nine Old Corporate Whores and the Koch brothers are breathlessly awaiting your opinion so they can gain enlightenment.

Or maybe they just don't give a shiat about you at all and the few hours of free time you have away from your well-hated job are being squandered on Fark posting opinions that don't do anything to change anything.

Again, the ONLY way to hit back on the evil bastards who run/ruin the world is to STOP HAVING BABIES ALREADY.  Unless you have a real strong urge to pop out young'uns, think twice about having kids.  You'll work your ass off trying to feed your kids; if you get divorced guys, you'll get reamed in Family Court; and in the end, your kid will end up feeding the Beast...
 
2014-04-02 05:09:27 PM  

Psycat: DON'T HAVE ANY FARKING KIDS ALREADY.


One of the smartest things I've read in this thread today (but, I skipped a lot).

...

You guys do realize this is a race to stupidity, though... right? Either its about how dumb voters are that they can be swayed by the more beautiful campaign... or, its about how dumb wealth is that it thinks it can advertise its way to winning a campaign.

If either are true, we deserve whatever we get and/or it would also be proof that democracy--at least Universal Suffrage--doesn't work.
 
2014-04-02 05:09:32 PM  

Alphax: sendtodave: DamnYankees: R.A.Danny: Why are they bad? They are protecting everyone's right to contribute.

All I can think of is this:

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."

That's exactly right.

Some people are more equal than others.

Based on money.

We accept that every day.

No. That's fundamentally wrong.


IT'S THE FRIGGEN LAW!

That's how it works!  You'll get 18 trumped up charges on a relatively minor offence.  Hope you can pay to fight them all!

Money is power.  That is fundamental truth.
 
2014-04-02 05:11:50 PM  

sendtodave: Alphax: sendtodave: Lando Lincoln: Eh. This country was going down the tubes anyway. May as well hurry the process along. The sooner everything is destroyed the sooner we can start to rebuild.

You think that the rich and powerful having more riches and power, is going to cause the downfall of society?

Have you been paying attention to how humans repeatedly organize themselves over the last 10,000 years?

The rich having more power than you IS society.

It is not American society.

When was America not entirely lead by the rich and powerful?  At what point in history?

When was ANY society not lead by the rich and powerful?

Caveat:  If the revolutionaries become rich and powerful, it doesn't count.


Please.

If this pushes much further, they really will incite the average joe moron to violence.  Results will be worse for everyone, but hey! Let's keep movin down that slippery slope!
 
2014-04-02 05:12:15 PM  

AurizenDarkstar: Serious Black: No Such Agency: Look.  If you don't like that some rich asshole can donate a million dollars to his favourite politician, get 999 other people together and pony up 1000 each to counteract him.  That's America.   Expecting the court to rule that your voice is worth more than his is futile.

They already have. Reynolds v. Sims. One man, one vote. Everyone's voice is equal in the political realm.

Only until the corporations and wealthy get it into their heads to fight for the right to have more than one vote based on their wealth (or gain the right to vote for those who work for them).  I mean, seriously, when you see decisions like this, does it seem so far from the realm of possibility that we are going to head that way?  Or worse, they demand that if a citizen makes below a set amount of money, they lose the franchise and their right to vote.


Well, we already tried "Don't let the blacks vote" and "Don't let women vote."  I guess it's just time to try "Don't let poor folks vote" now.

It's either that or "Don't let atheists vote."
 
2014-04-02 05:12:38 PM  
Anyway, guys, I'm getting to old to argue ideals, I think.  Too old, too married.  But, I do I like the advice that I should do what I can to change things.  I plan to.

I will make money, and bribe those with power, just like everyone else does to get what they want.

Because that's how the system works.
 
2014-04-02 05:13:27 PM  

rvesco: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

Yes, we really need a clear constitutional amendment that limits our rights.  We haven't had one of those since Prohibition.


Spending money to influence an election is a constitutional right?

Well, I guess, after today, it is.
 
2014-04-02 05:14:41 PM  

ciberido: MattStafford: DamnYankees: Whoa whoa whoa. Why are we giving the people in the lead an advantage?

How else would you suggest we handle it?  Everyone polling over X gets an equal share?  Everyone on the ballot gets an equal share?  If you set the bar too low, you will get lots of extreme fringe candidates getting money that shouldn't be.  If you set the bar too high, it just reinforces the status quo.  I'm open to suggestions, however, and just made that solution up about 10 minutes ago.

"Everyone polling over X gets an equal share"  has been tossed around before several times.  I haven't ever been able to think of anything that seemed more fair, personally.

Though, personally, I've thought of tweaking it such that candidates who were registered with a party other than the GOP or Democrats would get a little extra.  But you'd have to rule out people with no party affiliation (or else you'd be flooded with "Independents" who were really Republicans or Democrats), and you'd have to determine which parties are "real" parties, and that would be a mess.  It might not be feasible.


You don't need to rule out anyone. If some assclown can get enough signatures to get on enough ballots to win, then that assclown should get the same as the (D) or (R) assclown.

So, conceivably, you could have two or three (D) and a like amount of (R). that's not a bad thing; you could also have a few (L) and (G) and (I) candidates. If they all meet the threshold of being on enough ballots to mathematically win, they should be treated the same and their campaign should be publicly financed.

Broadcast TV and radio should be obligated to provide a set amount of free air time in equal amounts in equal time slots for all candidates.

Campaigns could be limited to no more than 3 months prior to the General Election, Primaries would be left to any political parties that need to put their candidate at the forefront. States should not provide free Primary Elections, the parties should have to pay for the state's efforts.

Elections should be IRV and vote-by-mail.

Same rules would apply for all elected national offices. States are free to decide the threshold for signatures required to get on the ballot.
 
2014-04-02 05:15:37 PM  

farkingatwork: sendtodave: Alphax: sendtodave: Lando Lincoln: Eh. This country was going down the tubes anyway. May as well hurry the process along. The sooner everything is destroyed the sooner we can start to rebuild.

You think that the rich and powerful having more riches and power, is going to cause the downfall of society?

Have you been paying attention to how humans repeatedly organize themselves over the last 10,000 years?

The rich having more power than you IS society.

It is not American society.

When was America not entirely lead by the rich and powerful?  At what point in history?

When was ANY society not lead by the rich and powerful?

Caveat:  If the revolutionaries become rich and powerful, it doesn't count.

Please.

If this pushes much further, they really will incite the average joe moron to violence.  Results will be worse for everyone, but hey! Let's keep movin down that slippery slope!


There will be no revolution.  Average Joe Moron only follows others to the revolution. Who would lead them to one?

And even if there is, they're just following the new boss.  Another rich guy with power.  Like every time there's been a revolution before.  Like ours, even.
 
2014-04-02 05:15:51 PM  

Psycat: Although I know it will fall on deaf ears, I'll repeat it again since you fellow Farkers are slow on the uptake...

DON'T HAVE ANY FARKING KIDS ALREADY.

Got it?

DON'T HAVE ANY FARKING KIDS ALREADY.

Comprendes?  Verstehen Sie?

Not having kids will make your life easier.  You'll save a few bucks and actually have a non-impoverished existence.  Better yet, you'll never have to apologize to your kids for bringing them into an increasingly fascist and farked-up society.  And most of all, the less kids we peasants have, the more you are going to fark over the goddam Koch brothers of the world.  Got it?

In the words of Desi Arnaz, lemme esplain:

There's only been one conspiracy in the world, the 0.01% who own 99.99% of everything.  They use all human institutions for their gain, and the biggest institution they use is parenthood.  You poor farkers (and myself) are seen as nothing but an inexhaustible supply of cheap labor and cannon fodder for the rich.  Stop breeding like brainless animals and you'll starve the plutocratic motherfarkers who need you far more than you need them.

Or just pop out more kids--and don't biatch when your kids and grandkids become the slaves of the New World Order...


this sounds like the premise of Idiocracy
 
2014-04-02 05:16:29 PM  

Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.


You MIGHT think that, if you were rather dim.

Or is this an attempt to resurrect that old "liberal elite" claptrap?
 
2014-04-02 05:17:28 PM  

Destructor: Psycat: DON'T HAVE ANY FARKING KIDS ALREADY.

One of the smartest things I've read in this thread today (but, I skipped a lot).


Thanks, Destructor.  Unfortunately, it will fall on deaf ears.  I'd guess that 95% of the posters here will not learn anything.  Instead, they'll just keep doing the same self-defeating crap their parents and grandparents did and then wonder why nothing changes.

...

You guys do realize this is a race to stupidity, though... right? Either its about how dumb voters are that they can be swayed by the more beautiful campaign... or, its about how dumb wealth is that it thinks it can advertise its way to winning a campaign.


Reminds me vaguely of an H.G. Wells quote about human history being a race between enlightenment and self-destruction, or something along those lines.

If either are true, we deserve whatever we get and/or it would also be proof that democracy--at least Universal Suffrage--doesn't work.

If the movie Idiocracy is true, and human society will be just a bunch of dumb Eloi who are raised as food by the Morlocks (i.e. the Supersonic Nazi Hell Creatures like the Koch-suckers), I for one will be supremely happy that none of the Eloi will be my offspring...
 
2014-04-02 05:20:29 PM  

ciberido: Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.

You MIGHT think that, if you were rather dim.

Or is this an attempt to resurrect that old "liberal elite" claptrap?


Are you saying Bloomberg doesn't like to use his money to get his way?
 
2014-04-02 05:23:24 PM  
8 of the 10 wealthiest members of congress are democrats
goldman sachs overwhelmingly contributed democratic in the 2008 and 2012 elections.

And you morons still think that republicans are the party of the rich....which surprises me not at all.
 
2014-04-02 05:24:37 PM  

o5iiawah: And you morons still think that republicans are the party of the rich....which surprises me not at all.


Yeah, do that. Keep arguing that the GOP isn't the party of the rich. That'll work.
 
2014-04-02 05:24:47 PM  

o5iiawah: 8 of the 10 wealthiest members of congress are democrats
goldman sachs overwhelmingly contributed democratic in the 2008 and 2012 elections.

And you morons still think that republicans are the party of the rich....which surprises me not at all.


But they're rich enough to not be influenced by money. Or some crap like that.
 
2014-04-02 05:24:56 PM  

R.A.Danny: ciberido: Road Rash: You would think Soros, Bloomberg, the unions, etc., would be happy about this.

You MIGHT think that, if you were rather dim.

Or is this an attempt to resurrect that old "liberal elite" claptrap?

Are you saying Bloomberg doesn't like to use his money to get his way?


He was a Republican. I don't think he qualifies as "liberal elite" other than the fact that his weirdo nanny state shiat is often and incorrectly associated with leftism and not the regular old fascism he actually represents.
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report