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)   The most liberal president to ever liberal a day in his liberal life has nominated to the bench the most liberal judges to ever liberal a day in their liberal lives. Liberal   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 105
    More: Obvious, Obama, recess appointment  
•       •       •

2865 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Apr 2014 at 2:19 PM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-14 12:57:00 PM  
My takeaway from that is that the Republicans have only gotten slightly more Republican since Nixon.

Which compared to every single other graph that shows the crazy derp starting in Reagan and just getting derpier since than is kind of odd.
 
2014-04-14 01:31:35 PM  

meyerkev: My takeaway from that is that the Republicans have only gotten slightly more Republican since Nixon.

Which compared to every single other graph that shows the crazy derp starting in Reagan and just getting derpier since than is kind of odd.


yup - in one dimension they are about the same
in every other dimension they are completely derp.

you are surprised ??
 
2014-04-14 02:24:45 PM  
Ye gods! It's almost as if he's a *drumroll* CENTRIST!
 
2014-04-14 02:24:54 PM  
But what of his farting?
 
2014-04-14 02:25:59 PM  
Thanks, Obama!
 
2014-04-14 02:26:45 PM  
libs_libs_libs_libs.jpg
 
2014-04-14 02:27:33 PM  
Now that was a great example of how to lie with statistics. In other words, no matter the party, the majority of judicial decision have been conservative. Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

Yes, Obama is the libbiest liberal /sarcasm
 
2014-04-14 02:28:03 PM  
 
2014-04-14 02:28:29 PM  
And yet the guy's policies makes Reagan look like Carter
 
2014-04-14 02:28:42 PM  

worlddan: Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.


And that's wrong how?
 
2014-04-14 02:28:51 PM  
img.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-14 02:30:14 PM  
So since the entire country was created on a platform of liberalism that's a good thing right?
 
2014-04-14 02:30:42 PM  

GoldSpider: worlddan: Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

And that's wrong how?


Conservatism is a failed ideology.
 
2014-04-14 02:32:05 PM  
It's libel to label these legal libertines liberal.
 
2014-04-14 02:32:06 PM  

Tigger: So since the entire country was created on a platform of liberalism that's a good thing right?


Inasmuch as the country was created out of "Christian Values" too, I would say.  The definition of "liberal" has evolved quite a bit since colonial times.
 
2014-04-14 02:32:36 PM  
memedepot.com
 
2014-04-14 02:32:40 PM  

namatad: meyerkev: My takeaway from that is that the Republicans have only gotten slightly more Republican since Nixon.

Which compared to every single other graph that shows the crazy derp starting in Reagan and just getting derpier since than is kind of odd.

yup - in one dimension they are about the same
in every other dimension they are completely derp.

you are surprised ??


Little bit.

I mean, if in every single dimension, they've gone progressively more and more lockstep conservative since about 1980, I'm kind of surprised that they haven't gone more and more progressively lockstep in this one.
 
2014-04-14 02:33:22 PM  

dr_blasto: GoldSpider: worlddan: Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

And that's wrong inaccurate how?


FTFM.  Modern Democrats are right-leaning centrists, while Republicans are...  well you know.
 
2014-04-14 02:34:16 PM  

worlddan: Now that was a great example of how to lie with statistics. In other words, no matter the party, the majority of judicial decision have been conservative. Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

Yes, Obama is the libbiest liberal /sarcasm


In all fairness, judicial decisions tend to be of the "Hah, no, you can't actually do that interesting social program because it's unconstitutional" variety and given that:

a) The country is always moving left. (As an average, over the course of several decades.  Reagan Revolution fine, but we're still a tad right economically and WAY left socially).
b) Judges get appointed and then reign for several decades

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

/Plus of course, you always have to define liberal and conservative.
 
2014-04-14 02:37:07 PM  

dr_blasto: GoldSpider: worlddan: Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

And that's wrong how?

Conservatism is a failed ideology.


Not really. Modern Conservatism can show us the way to a better future, by showing us their specific stance on whatever current sociological phenomenon currently in effect and going in completely going in the opposite directions.

Conservatives are around to show what NOT to do.
 
2014-04-14 02:42:03 PM  

meyerkev: In all fairness, judicial decisions tend to be of the "Hah, no, you can't actually do that interesting social program because it's unconstitutional" variety


Considering the Court's broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause lately, I don't see how you figure that.
 
2014-04-14 02:42:40 PM  

meyerkev: worlddan: Now that was a great example of how to lie with statistics. In other words, no matter the party, the majority of judicial decision have been conservative. Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

Yes, Obama is the libbiest liberal /sarcasm

In all fairness, judicial decisions tend to be of the "Hah, no, you can't actually do that interesting social program because it's unconstitutional" variety and given that:

a) The country is always moving left. (As an average, over the course of several decades.  Reagan Revolution fine, but we're still a tad right economically and WAY left socially).
b) Judges get appointed and then reign for several decades

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

/Plus of course, you always have to define liberal and conservative.


I'm not buying "but we're... WAY left socially" at all. The right-wing is still strong enough to pull the overton window well outside any practical definition of center. When the weirdo right-wing mouthpieces get fired for calling for disenfranchisement of women or quit getting paid to vomit their xenophobia all over major broadcast networks and radio, then we can say the system is returning.

But we're way off from that. Just because you can buy beer and weed in Colorado on Sunday doesn't mean the extreme right social movement is any weaker overall. Witness the continued resistance to gay marriage, equal pay for women and the simple fact that after the SCOTUS gutted the CRA, we have seen zero effort to restore it. We have seen repeated efforts by Texas, NC and other states to disempower, electorally, minorities - actions that would have gotten a smackdown from justice before SCOTUS did its thing.
 
2014-04-14 02:43:44 PM  
meyerkev:

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

That wasn't my point. My point was to imagine the chart in the inverse, such that rather than showing W as 35% liberal it showed him as 65% conservative, etc. That chart would leave a very different impression. Indeed, it's an odd chart that claims to measure the degree of liberalism when none of the Presidents exceed 50%. By showing the bars of the graph from left to right (rather than right to left) it leaves the impression that there is a lot more liberalism than there actually is because the mind focuses on the bars and not on the white space.

So it's an excellent example of how to graph data to imply something directly contradictory to the numerical data.
 
2014-04-14 02:45:11 PM  

GoldSpider: worlddan: Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

And that's wrong how?



Because most rational people would prefer to have more political and judicial choices than "EVIL" and "LAME."
 
2014-04-14 02:47:29 PM  
Man, this guy claims 40% of W's decisions were liberal.
 
2014-04-14 02:48:10 PM  

Smoking GNU: dr_blasto: GoldSpider: worlddan: Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

And that's wrong how?

Conservatism is a failed ideology.

Not really. Modern Conservatism can show us the way to a better future, by showing us their specific stance on whatever current sociological phenomenon currently in effect and going in completely going in the opposite directions.

Conservatives are around to show what NOT to do.


I understand the idea of conservative ideology, I just wish they'd acknowledge their place in the landscape and not be so disingenuous about it.  They've been wrong on every significant point they've fought for in western society for five centuries.  Perhaps longer.  They've lost every one of them.  At best, their place is to say "yes, the progressives are correct, we just need to slow down how fast we get there to let the world adjust.  We'll benefit more fully if we do it carefully and thoughtfully".

Instead, they fight to push back the clock to ideas and stances that make the world measurably worse than it is now.
 
2014-04-14 02:53:05 PM  
The most liberal president to ever liberal a day in his liberal life has nominated to the bench the most liberal judges to ever liberal a day in their liberal lives

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

Yes he has.  But not in about 70 years.
 
2014-04-14 03:01:42 PM  

worlddan: meyerkev:

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

That wasn't my point. My point was to imagine the chart in the inverse, such that rather than showing W as 35% liberal it showed him as 65% conservative, etc. That chart would leave a very different impression. Indeed, it's an odd chart that claims to measure the degree of liberalism when none of the Presidents exceed 50%. By showing the bars of the graph from left to right (rather than right to left) it leaves the impression that there is a lot more liberalism than there actually is because the mind focuses on the bars and not on the white space.

So it's an excellent example of how to graph data to imply something directly contradictory to the numerical data.


cloudfront.mediamatters.org
 
2014-04-14 03:04:43 PM  

dr_blasto: worlddan: meyerkev:

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

That wasn't my point. My point was to imagine the chart in the inverse, such that rather than showing W as 35% liberal it showed him as 65% conservative, etc. That chart would leave a very different impression. Indeed, it's an odd chart that claims to measure the degree of liberalism when none of the Presidents exceed 50%. By showing the bars of the graph from left to right (rather than right to left) it leaves the impression that there is a lot more liberalism than there actually is because the mind focuses on the bars and not on the white space.

So it's an excellent example of how to graph data to imply something directly contradictory to the numerical data.

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 590x356]


[tilts head to one side, squints]

I don't get it.

[squints some more]

Holy shiat! Goddamn! Okay, that's pretty clearly deceptive.
 
2014-04-14 03:05:04 PM  

dr_blasto: worlddan: meyerkev:

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

That wasn't my point. My point was to imagine the chart in the inverse, such that rather than showing W as 35% liberal it showed him as 65% conservative, etc. That chart would leave a very different impression. Indeed, it's an odd chart that claims to measure the degree of liberalism when none of the Presidents exceed 50%. By showing the bars of the graph from left to right (rather than right to left) it leaves the impression that there is a lot more liberalism than there actually is because the mind focuses on the bars and not on the white space.

So it's an excellent example of how to graph data to imply something directly contradictory to the numerical data.

[cloudfront.mediamatters.org image 590x356]


Faux News,
Completely unfair and unbalanced.
 
2014-04-14 03:11:46 PM  

Khellendros: I understand the idea of conservative ideology, I just wish they'd acknowledge their place in the landscape and not be so disingenuous about it.  They've been wrong on every significant point they've fought for in western society for five centuries.  Perhaps longer.  They've lost every one of them.  At best, their place is to say "yes, the progressives are correct, we just need to slow down how fast we get there to let the world adjust.  We'll benefit more fully if we do it carefully and thoughtfully".

Instead, they fight to push back the clock to ideas and stances that make the world measurably worse than it is now.


Don't be so sure that every progressive position is amazing.

Eugenics.  Not saying we were great, but mainstream academic thought was talking eugenics, and the Holocaust was merely a logical extension.  A horrible crime against humanity logical extension  TEDDY FARKING ROOSEVELT: Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.

If you define conservatism as "The status quo (or worse yet, a  previous status quo) is God" (or alternatively: "Don't remove a fence until you know why it was put there."), then yes, Conservatism has been wrong every time because it inherits the liberal position of yesteryear and it tends to inherit the default position of not removing fences.  But in turn, I'm *really* happy that the crazy feminists haven't gotten their way.  And I'm really, really happy that it took as long as it did to functionally define racism as "Anything that prevents statistical equality irregardless of underlying circumstances".  They're *wrong*, but please let them keep fighting that wrong fight because the purists scare the shiat out of me.

The key point of slowing down is that every once in a while, you're wrong, it's a rabbit hole and someone else goes down the rabbit hole and spends a bunch of time and effort figuring out that it's a rabbit hole or that society is legitimately not ready for your awesome cool idea, but they will be in 10 years.  That's not to say that your cool idea isn't a cool idea, but.  But those don't make it into the history books just like "The Progressive Movement supported eugenics" didn't.  Or "We should ban porn because it encourages violence against women." "Oh wait, we were wrong.  It actually reduces it".

Conservatism is your safety net.  Traditional Liberalism is your safety net.

/And ironically, the second eugenics goes from requiring mass murder, forced breeding, and sterilization to "Here's a surgery/pill that gets you 20 points of IQ and 3x endurance", I stop being incredibly anti-eugenices and "Pro with caution about the issues".
 
2014-04-14 03:13:58 PM  
Teddy Roosevelt is dead.
 
2014-04-14 03:15:28 PM  

dr_blasto: meyerkev: worlddan: Now that was a great example of how to lie with statistics. In other words, no matter the party, the majority of judicial decision have been conservative. Democratic appointed judges have been a little bit conservatives while Republican appointed judges have been full derp.

Yes, Obama is the libbiest liberal /sarcasm

In all fairness, judicial decisions tend to be of the "Hah, no, you can't actually do that interesting social program because it's unconstitutional" variety and given that:

a) The country is always moving left. (As an average, over the course of several decades.  Reagan Revolution fine, but we're still a tad right economically and WAY left socially).
b) Judges get appointed and then reign for several decades

I'd be surprised if this wasn't the case.

/Plus of course, you always have to define liberal and conservative.

I'm not buying "but we're... WAY left socially" at all. The right-wing is still strong enough to pull the overton window well outside any practical definition of center. When the weirdo right-wing mouthpieces get fired for calling for disenfranchisement of women or quit getting paid to vomit their xenophobia all over major broadcast networks and radio, then we can say the system is returning.

But we're way off from that. Just because you can buy beer and weed in Colorado on Sunday doesn't mean the extreme right social movement is any weaker overall. Witness the continued resistance to gay marriage, equal pay for women and the simple fact that after the SCOTUS gutted the CRA, we have seen zero effort to restore it. We have seen repeated efforts by Texas, NC and other states to disempower, electorally, minorities - actions that would have gotten a smackdown from justice before SCOTUS did its thing.


The President is not a complete fool, or at least his advisors aren't complete fools.  He knows that if he went to full liberal derp, those judges would never be approved by the senate thanks to a handful of democrat senators that represent red states because those democrats know that they would lose their next re-election campaign, thus guaranteeing a republican controlled senate that could cause all sorts of problems or begin all sorts of investigations.  I think they would like to avoid that.

As for continued resistance to gay marriage, that's much more of a religious conservative effort that's failing because the constitutional conservatives, who are about the be ones driving the party, don't give a fark about gay marriage.  The bill that was attempted in the senate was only a thinly veiled attempt to embarrass republicans and give democrat senators in trouble some political ammunition, and they were called on it and exposed for it.  SCOTUS didn't gut the CRA, they voided one part of it as no longer being fair to all of the states (the short version).  Nobody has come forward with a bill that addresses the concerns of the different states and will pass constitutional muster.  Requiring a photo ID is not an onerous task when states are providing them for free- you just have to go get one. If democrats in those states are so concerned about being denied the vote, organize some getting your photo ID drives. You needed a photo ID to get into the democratic national convention in 2012.  You need a photo ID to do a lot of things.  Hell, you need appropriate ID here in Maryland, where the dead vote.  It doesn't have to be photo ID, it can be some time of bill or documentation that has and address on it.

And lets not forget that for every right-wing mouth piece, there is a left-wing mouth piece that is just as bad, if not worse, than any of the conservatives on the TV or radio.  Its also called free speech, which is something that many liberals have a problem with if the speech in question disagrees with them.  If you don't like what they have to say, then don't listen.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-14 03:16:35 PM  

yakmans_dad: Teddy Roosevelt is dead.


www.dougquick.com
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-14 03:17:37 PM  

bobothemagnificent: And lets not forget that for every right-wing mouth piece, there is a left-wing mouth piece that is just as bad, if not worse, than any of the conservatives on the TV or radio. Its also called free speech, which is something that many liberals have a problem with if the speech in question disagrees with them. If you don't like what they have to say, then don't listen.


fark Poe and his law.  Jesus farking christ.
 
2014-04-14 03:22:17 PM  

bobothemagnificent: And lets not forget that for every right-wing mouth piece, there is a left-wing mouth piece that is just as bad, if not worse, than any of the conservatives on the TV or radio. Its also called free speech, which is something that many liberals have a problem with if the speech in question disagrees with them. If you don't like what they have to say, then don't listen.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-14 03:30:43 PM  
~fartz~
 
2014-04-14 03:31:50 PM  

d23: bobothemagnificent: And lets not forget that for every right-wing mouth piece, there is a left-wing mouth piece that is just as bad, if not worse, than any of the conservatives on the TV or radio. Its also called free speech, which is something that many liberals have a problem with if the speech in question disagrees with them. If you don't like what they have to say, then don't listen.

fark Poe and his law.  Jesus farking christ.


It takes a lot of courage to take a position so indefensibly moronic that there's been a joke about if for several years. Or a lot of stupid.
 
2014-04-14 03:35:31 PM  

meyerkev: Eugenics. Not saying we were great, but mainstream academic thought was talking eugenics, and the Holocaust was merely a logical extension. A horrible crime against humanity logical extension TEDDY FARKING ROOSEVELT: Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.


To, in any way, equate the Holocaust with the merits of eugenics is pure crap.  Plain and simple.  There is a place for eugenics in a scientifically advanced society, and should be explored once we have the capability to solve things like myopia, cancer, heart disease, and other genetic issues.  And if you took people who are considered "degenerates" today - those of poor health, low intelligence, and disease prone - and altered their genes so they have healthy, smarter offspring, we'd have a better world.  And there's nothing sinister about that.

meyerkev: Conservatism has been wrong every time because it inherits the liberal position of yesteryear and it tends to inherit the default position of not removing fences.


It's about the movement, not the position.  The positions are always in reference to where you are, not a pillar to be achieved on its own.  Conservatism always pushes in a backward direction, regardless of where you currently are.  Liberalism pushes forward (often to hard and too quickly, resulting in very damaging positions that require temperance and a state of public readiness).  If our society was currently in the state it was in the 1950's, liberals would still push left, and conservatives still push right.  The position is irrelevant, it's the motion that defines the ideology.

meyerkev: Conservatism is your safety net. Traditional Liberalism is your safety net.


Conservatism is living in the past.  Liberalism shows you the future.  Conservatives today need to understand that their position is wrong-headed and lost to time, but liberals need to understand that you have to walk before you run, and new positions and ideologies need some time and cultural readiness to develop.

Liberals often acknowledge that they want to move too far, too fast.  Most often, liberal politicians in the U.S. are quite tempered and compromising in their positions and legislation.  However, conservatives proclaim that moving backwards is the right move.  They should instead advocate moving forward more slowly, and that in the careful positioning and patience we will gain greater benefit from the eventual and inevitable change.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-14 03:46:47 PM  

Khellendros: [abbreviated for sanity's sake]


When you write for The Onion, what name do you use?
 
2014-04-14 03:52:14 PM  
I think we need to handle the Supreme Court differently. Instead of appointments that last a damn lifetime, I think they need to be appointed, and if they accept they sit on the Court for 6 years, and then they are barred from public service after that. They cannot run for ANY office after sitting on the bench.

But then, I think we need to do the same thing for Senators and Congresspersons.

You serve your term, then you are OUT. Period. End of story. No more politics for you. Fresh minds have to take your place.
 
2014-04-14 03:55:36 PM  

meyerkev: functionally define racism as "Anything that prevents statistical equality irregardless of underlying circumstances". They're *wrong*, but please let them keep fighting that wrong fight because the purists scare the shiat out of me.


Huh? Did you say something? Whatever it was, I didn't hear it because I was too distracted finding a dictionary to refudiate your usage error.
 
2014-04-14 03:58:08 PM  

Nix Nightbird: But then, I think we need to do the same thing for Senators and Congresspersons.


Doctors too!

I don't want someone experienced, I want someone NEW!
 
2014-04-14 04:02:32 PM  

d23: Khellendros: [abbreviated for sanity's sake]

When you write for The Onion, what name do you use?


How was that Onion-esque at all?  Other than writing too many words for only two or three points, I wasn't presenting satire.
 
2014-04-14 04:03:38 PM  
Now what did he break?
 
2014-04-14 04:04:34 PM  

bobothemagnificent: And lets not forget that for every right-wing mouth piece, there is a left-wing mouth piece that is just as bad, if not worse, than any of the conservatives on the TV or radio.


Yes, just as bad or worse. Wait, I completely disagree. In fact, I'll say these self-identified independent conservative voices significantly outnumber any liberal, progressive, socialist or otherwise lefty voices. Lefty radio has been a failure as it seems their target audience doesn't want to listen to unhinged rantings like the conservatives seem to enjoy.

But aside from that, I'm not directly talking about the Voter ID, which is an issue, but rather the insane redistricting in the states mentioned.

But, hey, I can use a credit card to purchase all kinds of shiat without showing any ID. If you want to have that conversation, find the better thread for it than this one.

meyerkev: But in turn, I'm *really* happy that the crazy feminists haven't gotten their way.  And I'm really, really happy that it took as long as it did to functionally define racism as "Anything that prevents statistical equality irregardless of underlying circumstances".  They're *wrong*, but please let them keep fighting that wrong fight because the purists scare the shiat out of me.


What is this plan that "crazy feminists" failed at? I'll go on to say that the modern conservative movement has gone out of its way to resist equal treatment under the law. Whether it is limiting women's ability to sue for damages to criminal charges for sexual assault, equal pay and the like or if it is directly underfunding minority-heavy districts' voting infrastructure to ensure that it is much more difficult for someone in the inner city to vote than some wealthy suburbanite. People who aren't lily white find that they're targeted for questioning by cops, they have to show ID to vote much more often than others.

Economically, the conservative movement has failed in every instance. Deregulation, privatization, tax policy and foreign policy are abject failures. Don't really need to say much else for their economic policies.

Time to bury that corpse. Socially, they've held back science, education and have consistently worked to push the US as far back in the pack of modern industrialized nations that they can. If you looked in form the outside without any interest, you wouldn't be crazy to think that these policies are designed to increase the gap between the empowered and powerless, consolidating power, money and influence in a small, targeted group. Keep labor weak and poor, that way they'll be too busy arguing with each other to do anything about their circumstance.
 
2014-04-14 04:12:38 PM  

bobothemagnificent: And lets not forget that for every right-wing mouth piece, there is a left-wing mouth piece that is just as bad, if not worse, than any of the conservatives on the TV or radio.


For example?
 
2014-04-14 04:16:30 PM  

stuhayes2010: Man, this guy claims 40% of W's decisions were liberal.


No True Conservative. They've been trying to paint him with a liberal brush ever since the U-Haul pulled out of Pennsylvania Avenue.

It's amazing that he got re-elected in 2004, since you can barely find anyone who will admit to voting for him.
 
2014-04-14 04:16:53 PM  

Hickory-smoked: bobothemagnificent: And lets not forget that for every right-wing mouth piece, there is a left-wing mouth piece that is just as bad, if not worse, than any of the conservatives on the TV or radio.

For example?


In his imagination there is.
It's a happy place!
 
2014-04-14 04:18:53 PM  

dr_blasto: Keep labor weak and poor, that way they'll be too busy arguing with each other to do anything about their circumstance.


Their goal is indeed to keep labor weak and poor. But that's not the principle means they use to put workers at others' throats. That's what racism, sexism, blaming bad economic conditions on environmentalists, promoting the view that most "welfare" goes to racial minorities, etc., are for.
 
Displayed 50 of 105 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report