Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Center for Public Integrity)   Stat of the year: Conservative groups are spending $3 attacking Republicans for every $1 attacking Democrats   (publicintegrity.org ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Democrats, Republicans, GOP, SCF, Thad Cochran, Chris McDaniel, political action committees, independent expenditures  
•       •       •

895 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 May 2014 at 8:53 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-08 07:41:30 AM  
Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.
 
2014-05-08 08:26:27 AM  

ScaryBottles: Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.


Not mine. They money is going to republicans that A) meet their "conservative purity" measurements, and B) will be in the pocket of the people funding their campaign. It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything, and a guarantee that the type of gridlock for anything that isn't tax cuts will soon become the standard for Washington.
 
2014-05-08 08:40:04 AM  

SmackLT: ScaryBottles: Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.

Not mine. They money is going to republicans that A) meet their "conservative purity" measurements, and B) will be in the pocket of the people funding their campaign. It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything, and a guarantee that the type of gridlock for anything that isn't tax cuts will soon become the standard for Washington.


You make a fair point but do you really think it was heading in a different direction before? Also keep in mind the further they have to pull right the more moderate/undecideds stop listening. So yeah it sucks but eventually the problem is going to take care of itself.

Hopefully.....
 
2014-05-08 08:55:36 AM  
The GOP made a Tea-Party (Frankenstein) now you have to spend all you money to kill it. Maybe the GOP did not think their cunning plan all the way through? You start an organization whose mission seems to be anti government but then you realize you work in government...
 
2014-05-08 08:56:57 AM  
Things are going to get one hell of a lot worse before they get any better.

/don't ever challenge WORSE
 
2014-05-08 08:57:02 AM  
Duh? It's primary season.
 
2014-05-08 08:57:10 AM  
Well, at the very least it's a good sign that they have to spend that much to push the crazy through and can't just rely on crazy to win as the default.

Unfortunately, the more people are convinced to vote for crazy, the more normal it seems and the further into crazy town the national average shifts.
 
2014-05-08 09:00:48 AM  

SmackLT: ScaryBottles: Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.

Not mine. They money is going to republicans that A) meet their "conservative purity" measurements, and B) will be in the pocket of the people funding their campaign. It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything, and a guarantee that the type of gridlock for anything that isn't tax cuts will soon become the standard for Washington.


In other word it means fewer electable Republicans?
 
2014-05-08 09:03:36 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Duh? It's primary season.


Quoted for accuracy.
 
2014-05-08 09:03:42 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Duh? It's primary season.


This is unprecedented, even in primary season.  Welcome to Fark Politics.
 
2014-05-08 09:04:26 AM  

eiger: YixilTesiphon: Duh? It's primary season.

Quoted for accuracy.


Quoted for ignorance
 
2014-05-08 09:04:56 AM  

Epic Fap Session: SmackLT: ScaryBottles: Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.

Not mine. They money is going to republicans that A) meet their "conservative purity" measurements, and B) will be in the pocket of the people funding their campaign. It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything, and a guarantee that the type of gridlock for anything that isn't tax cuts will soon become the standard for Washington.

In other word it means fewer electable Republicans being elected anyway?


FTFY
 
2014-05-08 09:07:32 AM  
Operation Potato Famine
 
2014-05-08 09:07:51 AM  

ScaryBottles: So yeah it sucks but eventually the problem is going to take care of itself.


Not the way we're going. Our country's rules of governance work on this silly, antiquated assumption that the governed will act, if not rationally, at least in their own best interests. These teabagging bastards have managed to completely thwart that by acting purely out of spite at every possible chance.

They don't have to win many seats to wreak complete havoc on everybody. A bunch of inbred dickheads from Texas in some tiny little shiathole next to a superfund site that's been mutating them through their drinking water for forty years can ruin things for everyone simply by electing somebody like Ted Cruz and then sending him into the fray with the only goal being disruption. And thanks to the rules of Congress, it works. It works even better with representatives because some idiot representing .001% of the country can do things that affect EVERYONE.

There are patches of this country that have effectively adopted the position that they don't care if they win, just so long as everyone else loses.

I'm not sure how democracy can solve that. If people want to vote purely out of spite to hurt everyone else, what's to stop them?
 
2014-05-08 09:08:21 AM  
If by "conservative groups" you mean "reactionary neo-feudal corporatists", then yes, this headline is accurate.
 
2014-05-08 09:08:57 AM  
And that's why conservatives have been winning for three decades - they keep pushing the zeitgeist further and further right while Democrats short-sightedly point and laugh while rushing into the now-empty "middle."
 
2014-05-08 09:12:00 AM  
watching republicans savage each other here in nebraska has been a small consolation for the inevitable fact that they'll win all their races against democrats this november.
 
2014-05-08 09:12:15 AM  

monoski: The GOP made a Tea-Party (Frankenstein) now you have to spend all you money to kill it. Maybe the GOP did not think their cunning plan all the way through? You start an organization whose mission seems to be anti government but then you realize you work in government...


I think you might be a little mixed up here. Its the teabaggers who are spending 3 to1 to oust the establishment candidates. So yeah its like double hilarious.
 
2014-05-08 09:13:15 AM  

monoski: The GOP (Frankenstein) made a Tea-Party (artificially enlivened monster that pitches a destructive fit when its creator fails to love it sufficiently) now you have to spend all you money to kill it. Maybe the GOP did not think their cunning plan all the way through? You start an organization whose mission seems to be anti government but then you realize you work in government...


There, fixed that up a bit for the literature Nazis.
 
2014-05-08 09:13:52 AM  

SmackLT: ScaryBottles: Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.

Not mine. They money is going to republicans that A) meet their "conservative purity" measurements, and B) will be in the pocket of the people funding their campaign. It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything, and a guarantee that the type of gridlock for anything that isn't tax cuts will soon become the standard for Washington.


Pretty damn much.

cubic_spleen: If by "conservative groups" you mean "reactionary neo-feudal corporatists", then yes, this headline is accurate.


Pretty frippin' much.

It pretty much tells the story of the party at this point...
 
2014-05-08 09:16:02 AM  

Epic Fap Session: In other word it means fewer electable Republicans?


I'm a fan of the two (or-more) party system. I'm not a Democrat, but the money has pulled the Republican base so far to the right that the Democrats are currently occupying the moderate center. What I want is better balance, where both parties work in a sometimes heated but mostly respectful conflict to make legislation that benefits the majority of people. The money is supporting people who treat politics as a zero-sum game where the only victory is loudly and continually blocking any proposal by anybody with a D after their name. The people being drummed out are moderate Republicans, so yeah--it bugs me. I don't hate moderate Republicans and I think the best legislation comes from strong ideas from both sides, being tempered by debate, revision and eventually compromise.
 
2014-05-08 09:16:58 AM  

cubic_spleen: If by "conservative groups" you mean "reactionary neo-feudal corporatists", then yes, this headline is accurate.

You said conservative groups twice.
 
2014-05-08 09:17:26 AM  

YixilTesiphon: Duh? It's primary season.I didn't RTFA

 
2014-05-08 09:18:04 AM  
Democrats will vote for anyone with a D after their name. That is why so many Total Farkers are willing to vote for Hillary or Warren. That choice would make no sense to a rational person, as the two candidates are polar opposites. But not to partisan useful idiots.

There are blindly loyal Republicans too, but much less are willing to take the bullshiat Democrats are. The proof is in the pudding.
 
2014-05-08 09:20:24 AM  
RINO hunting safaris and regular visits to the podiatrist to remove shrapnel ain't cheap.
 
2014-05-08 09:24:08 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Democrats will vote for anyone with a D after their name. That is why so many Total Farkers are willing to vote for Hillary or Warren. That choice would make no sense to a rational person, as the two candidates are polar opposites. But not to partisan useful idiots.

There are blindly loyal Republicans too, but much less are willing to take the bullshiat Democrats are. The proof is in the pudding.


Choosing between Hillary and Warren is like choosing between a liberal Democrat and a moderate Republican. Choosing between either of them and a Republican at this point is like choosing between someone you might find relatively unsavory and a ranting lunatic who wants to dismantle the very body he wants to join or continue to be in, actively take health care away from Americans, institute theocratic laws, discriminate against your friends and family, and/or spend tens of millions of dollars wasting their time with repeated witch hunts against their political opposition while failing to propose a single change or improvement to prevent a repeat of the very tragedy they're rallying behind.

I want to vote for the person I like. If given a choice between the person I like and the person I think is a dick, I'll go with the person I like. If given a choice between the person I think is a dick and the person I think will burn down my farking house and rape my dog, I'm gonna vote for the dick.
 
2014-05-08 09:24:58 AM  

Epic Fap Session: SmackLT: ScaryBottles: Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.

Not mine. They money is going to republicans that A) meet their "conservative purity" measurements, and B) will be in the pocket of the people funding their campaign. It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything, and a guarantee that the type of gridlock for anything that isn't tax cuts will soon become the standard for Washington.

In other word it means fewer electable Republicans?


Which would be great if there were more than a about dozen competitive districts in the country.
 
2014-05-08 09:25:10 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Democrats will vote for anyone with a D after their name. That is why so many Total Farkers are willing to vote for Hillary or Warren. That choice would make no sense to a rational person, as the two candidates are polar opposites. But not to partisan useful idiots.

There are blindly loyal Republicans too, but much less are willing to take the bullshiat Democrats are. The proof is in the pudding.

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/
 
2014-05-08 09:26:48 AM  
And ya wanna bet it's the old-guard going after the social moderates?
 
2014-05-08 09:26:49 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Democrats will vote for anyone with a D after their name. That is why so many Total Farkers are willing to vote for Hillary or Warren. That choice would make no sense to a rational person, as the two candidates are polar opposites. But not to partisan useful idiots.

There are blindly loyal Republicans too, but much less are willing to take the bullshiat Democrats are. The proof is in the pudding.


You, you big, strident, boot strappy independent you...To be honest, after reading your post, I am no longer completely flaccid, if you know what I mean.
 
2014-05-08 09:27:03 AM  

SmackLT: ScaryBottles: Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.

Not mine. They money is going to republicans that A) meet their "conservative purity" measurements, and B) will be in the pocket of the people funding their campaign. It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything, and a guarantee that the type of gridlock for anything that isn't tax cuts will soon become the standard for Washington.


You're making a faulty assumption that, absent the influence of the Tea Party, there would be any republicans not devoted to tax cuts and gridlock.

Republicans started devoting themselves to impersonating poorly behaved children before the rise of the teahadis, before the sun even set on the first day of the Obama administration.
 
2014-05-08 09:27:48 AM  

SmackLT: Epic Fap Session: In other word it means fewer electable Republicans?

I'm a fan of the two (or-more) party system. I'm not a Democrat, but the money has pulled the Republican base so far to the right that the Democrats are currently occupying the moderate center. What I want is better balance, where both parties work in a sometimes heated but mostly respectful conflict to make legislation that benefits the majority of people. The money is supporting people who treat politics as a zero-sum game where the only victory is loudly and continually blocking any proposal by anybody with a D after their name. The people being drummed out are moderate Republicans, so yeah--it bugs me. I don't hate moderate Republicans and I think the best legislation comes from strong ideas from both sides, being tempered by debate, revision and eventually compromise.


Sounds like you could use a Westminster system and a monarch. Gotta tell ya, they work out pretty great.
 
2014-05-08 09:27:57 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Democrats will vote for anyone with a D after their name. That is why so many Total Farkers are willing to vote for Hillary or Warren. That choice would make no sense to a rational person, as the two candidates are polar opposites. But not to partisan useful idiots.


47% of the country will vote D. 47% of the country will vote R. No mater who those letters end up being.

The choice isn't just between Hillary and Warren, it's about electability.  I'm not going to vote for a candidate that may appeal most to me personally based on their take on the issues, but can not win the general election, leaving me with a Republican that brings back the same gang of idiots that led to two botched wars, Katrina and an economic meltdown. Politics is compromise.

There are blindly loyal Republicans too, but much less are willing to take the bullshiat Democrats are. The proof is in the pudding.

Well, sure, people who do not understand that politics is about compromise often choose to support people that promise to not compromise even if that grinds the government to a halt.  That is not a good thing.
 
2014-05-08 09:28:22 AM  

cubic_spleen: If by "conservative groups" you mean "reactionary neo-feudal corporatists", then yes, this headline is accurate.


IS there a difference?
 
2014-05-08 09:28:44 AM  

skozlaw: ScaryBottles: So yeah it sucks but eventually the problem is going to take care of itself.

Not the way we're going. Our country's rules of governance work on this silly, antiquated assumption that the governed will act, if not rationally, at least in their own best interests. These teabagging bastards have managed to completely thwart that by acting purely out of spite at every possible chance.

They don't have to win many seats to wreak complete havoc on everybody. A bunch of inbred dickheads from Texas in some tiny little shiathole next to a superfund site that's been mutating them through their drinking water for forty years can ruin things for everyone simply by electing somebody like Ted Cruz and then sending him into the fray with the only goal being disruption. And thanks to the rules of Congress, it works. It works even better with representatives because some idiot representing .001% of the country can do things that affect EVERYONE.

There are patches of this country that have effectively adopted the position that they don't care if they win, just so long as everyone else loses.

I'm not sure how democracy can solve that. If people want to vote purely out of spite to hurt everyone else, what's to stop them?


Good Lord liberals hate people.  I know they love defending the right of "people" to get stuff, or to do particular things that are fashionable at the moment (generally defined as being offensive to their political opponents), but when actual people start expressing their actual beliefs, the hatred and contempt flows freely, and irrational hype trumps all reason.  Damned close to a pathology.
 
2014-05-08 09:29:23 AM  
So? Once the primaries are over they'll just reload from their big money donors and will still outspend Dems dramatically.
 
2014-05-08 09:36:02 AM  
It's to stimulate the economy, stupid.
 
2014-05-08 09:36:12 AM  

Garet Garrett: Good Lord liberals hate people.  I know they love defending the right of "people" to get stuff, or to do particular things that are fashionable at the moment (generally defined as being offensive to their political opponents), but when actual people start expressing their actual beliefs, the hatred and contempt flows freely, and irrational hype trumps all reason.  Damned close to a pathology.


Jesus, dude, try using an example or something. Your generalizations are too convoluted to make any sense.

// what stuff? why the hell is people in quotes? get stuff?
 
2014-05-08 09:37:07 AM  

moothemagiccow: why the hell is people in quotes?


The "those" is silent.
 
2014-05-08 09:39:07 AM  

moothemagiccow: Garet Garrett: Good Lord liberals hate people.  I know they love defending the right of "people" to get stuff, or to do particular things that are fashionable at the moment (generally defined as being offensive to their political opponents), but when actual people start expressing their actual beliefs, the hatred and contempt flows freely, and irrational hype trumps all reason.  Damned close to a pathology.

Jesus, dude, try using an example or something. Your generalizations are too convoluted to make any sense.

// what stuff? why the hell is people in quotes? get stuff?


They are mongrels, not people to him.
 
2014-05-08 09:40:02 AM  

SmackLT: It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything


How can we have fewer than the *counts* zero we have right now?
 
2014-05-08 09:41:00 AM  

SmackLT: Epic Fap Session: In other word it means fewer electable Republicans?

I'm a fan of the two (or-more) party system. I'm not a Democrat, but the money has pulled the Republican base so far to the right that the Democrats are currently occupying the moderate center. What I want is better balance, where both parties work in a sometimes heated but mostly respectful conflict to make legislation that benefits the majority of people. The money is supporting people who treat politics as a zero-sum game where the only victory is loudly and continually blocking any proposal by anybody with a D after their name. The people being drummed out are moderate Republicans, so yeah--it bugs me. I don't hate moderate Republicans and I think the best legislation comes from strong ideas from both sides, being tempered by debate, revision and eventually compromise.


That.

Even though I may not agree with everything our state's conservative Senator does; I find it heartening when I see her name attached to most if not every compromise deal that comes out of Washington.  Why can Collins work with both sides of the aisle; but so many other Republicans cannot?
 
2014-05-08 09:42:19 AM  

Garet Garrett: Good Lord liberals hate people.  I know they love defending the right of "people" to get stuff, or to do particular things that are fashionable at the moment (generally defined as being offensive to their political opponents), but when actual people start expressing their actual beliefs, the hatred and contempt flows freely, and irrational hype trumps all reason.  Damned close to a pathology.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-08 09:42:20 AM  

OneTimed: moothemagiccow: Garet Garrett: Good Lord liberals hate people.  I know they love defending the right of "people" to get stuff, or to do particular things that are fashionable at the moment (generally defined as being offensive to their political opponents), but when actual people start expressing their actual beliefs, the hatred and contempt flows freely, and irrational hype trumps all reason.  Damned close to a pathology.

Jesus, dude, try using an example or something. Your generalizations are too convoluted to make any sense.

// what stuff? why the hell is people in quotes? get stuff?

They are mongrels, not people to him.


Lay off him, I want to him to tell me why I hate America.
 
2014-05-08 09:42:38 AM  

Garet Garrett: skozlaw: ScaryBottles: So yeah it sucks but eventually the problem is going to take care of itself.

Not the way we're going. Our country's rules of governance work on this silly, antiquated assumption that the governed will act, if not rationally, at least in their own best interests. These teabagging bastards have managed to completely thwart that by acting purely out of spite at every possible chance.

They don't have to win many seats to wreak complete havoc on everybody. A bunch of inbred dickheads from Texas in some tiny little shiathole next to a superfund site that's been mutating them through their drinking water for forty years can ruin things for everyone simply by electing somebody like Ted Cruz and then sending him into the fray with the only goal being disruption. And thanks to the rules of Congress, it works. It works even better with representatives because some idiot representing .001% of the country can do things that affect EVERYONE.

There are patches of this country that have effectively adopted the position that they don't care if they win, just so long as everyone else loses.

I'm not sure how democracy can solve that. If people want to vote purely out of spite to hurt everyone else, what's to stop them?

Good Lord liberals hate people.  I know they love defending the right of "people" to get stuff, or to do particular things that are fashionable at the moment (generally defined as being offensive to their political opponents), but when actual people start expressing their actual beliefs, the hatred and contempt flows freely, and irrational hype trumps all reason.  Damned close to a pathology.



What makes the quotation mark people less genuine than actual people?
 
2014-05-08 09:43:12 AM  

SmackLT: ScaryBottles: Hearing shiat like this always warms my rotten little heart.

Not mine. They money is going to republicans that A) meet their "conservative purity" measurements, and B) will be in the pocket of the people funding their campaign. It means fewer republicans that are willing to negotiate about anything, and a guarantee that the type of gridlock for anything that isn't tax cuts will soon become the standard for Washington.


Yep. Every dime spent by conservatives in the name of out-conservativing each other, every bite the snake takes out of its own tail, shifts the Overton window to the right. It's theater to distract us from seeing how broken our legislature has become.

The US is voting uncompromising individuals into positions that, by their very definition, require a substantial degree of compromise. And are convinced that it's the right thing to do.
 
2014-05-08 09:45:58 AM  
Meh, it's primary season. The well of their money is deep. Plenty left over to have 24/7, non-stop negs on Democrats come October and November.

Thanks, Citizens United!

/not happy about this
 
2014-05-08 09:47:36 AM  

xanadian: SmackLT: Epic Fap Session: In other word it means fewer electable Republicans?

I'm a fan of the two (or-more) party system. I'm not a Democrat, but the money has pulled the Republican base so far to the right that the Democrats are currently occupying the moderate center. What I want is better balance, where both parties work in a sometimes heated but mostly respectful conflict to make legislation that benefits the majority of people. The money is supporting people who treat politics as a zero-sum game where the only victory is loudly and continually blocking any proposal by anybody with a D after their name. The people being drummed out are moderate Republicans, so yeah--it bugs me. I don't hate moderate Republicans and I think the best legislation comes from strong ideas from both sides, being tempered by debate, revision and eventually compromise.

That.

Even though I may not agree with everything our state's conservative Senator does; I find it heartening when I see her name attached to most if not every compromise deal that comes out of Washington.  Why can Collins work with both sides of the aisle; but so many other Republicans cannot?


Collins hails from a state that won't punish her for doing so?
 
2014-05-08 09:48:16 AM  

Garet Garrett: skozlaw: ScaryBottles: So yeah it sucks but eventually the problem is going to take care of itself.

Not the way we're going. Our country's rules of governance work on this silly, antiquated assumption that the governed will act, if not rationally, at least in their own best interests. These teabagging bastards have managed to completely thwart that by acting purely out of spite at every possible chance.

They don't have to win many seats to wreak complete havoc on everybody. A bunch of inbred dickheads from Texas in some tiny little shiathole next to a superfund site that's been mutating them through their drinking water for forty years can ruin things for everyone simply by electing somebody like Ted Cruz and then sending him into the fray with the only goal being disruption. And thanks to the rules of Congress, it works. It works even better with representatives because some idiot representing .001% of the country can do things that affect EVERYONE.

There are patches of this country that have effectively adopted the position that they don't care if they win, just so long as everyone else loses.

I'm not sure how democracy can solve that. If people want to vote purely out of spite to hurt everyone else, what's to stop them?

Good Lord liberals hate people.  I know they love defending the right of "people" to get stuff, or to do particular things that are fashionable at the moment (generally defined as being offensive to their political opponents), but when actual people start expressing their actual beliefs, the hatred and contempt flows freely, and irrational hype trumps all reason.  Damned close to a pathology.


Have you ever seen a tea party rally?
 
2014-05-08 09:48:45 AM  
subs have you ever heard of a primary?
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and 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