Skip to content
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.

(Some Guy)   Actual headline: "So Democrats disagree, so what?" Extra bonus irony goodness: This headline is not on Fox, NRO, Weekly Standard or NewsMax   (news.yahoo.com) divider line
28
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

947 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jul 2006 at 1:40 PM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
 
JoJoTheIdiotMonkeyBoy
2006-07-24 12:13:27 PM  
God forbid they don't walk lock-step with every member of their party.

That's the kind of thinking that's gotten the Republican Party so out of favor with many Americans.
 
Bladel
2006-07-24 12:15:45 PM  
[image from cagle.msnbc.com too old to be available]
 
Mordant
2006-07-24 12:21:18 PM  
One day submitter will be old enough to understand concepts more complex than "go, Team !"


Old enough at least, but probably still not bright enough.
 
stpauler
2006-07-24 12:44:46 PM  
See, this is what happens when you're not "the party of inclusion™"
 
Skleenar
2006-07-24 1:03:04 PM  
FTA:

As for a centrist vs. liberal message, it would be regrettable if polarization driven by the wings of the parties dominates the November and 2008 elections. Some are now trying to counter this trend, especially on the Internet: Political operatives from both parties are coming together to stimulate cool-headed debate (Hotsoup.com), and others are trying to draft a centrist presidential third-party ticket (Unity08.com). Extreme politics is not what the country wants, or needs, at this point.

Extreme?

Like, say, invading a country that did not attack us?
Claiming the President has dictatorial powers above and beyond those granted in the Constitution?
Pushing for the wider spread of a regional conflict in the Middle East?
Attacking federal judges who don't toe your party line?

I'd say I agree that we have had enough of this sort of extremism.

What is the extremism they are concerned about from the Democratic party?
 
mediaho
2006-07-24 1:03:45 PM  
Firecracker, firecracker, siss-boom-bah Bugs Bunny, Bugs Bunny, RAH-RAH-RAH!!! GooOOO TEAM!

Can we just get rid of the farking parties and have candidates run on their own merits for once?
 
Fart_Machine
2006-07-24 1:46:14 PM  
Someday I'll see the term irony used correctly on FARK in a headline.

Someday...
 
clifton
2006-07-24 1:48:24 PM  
"I'm not a right wing extremists evangelical christian neo-conservative"

That's all it takes for me to get their vote, RIGHT or LEFT.

/well, and if they're not a scumbag
 
Shut........UP
2006-07-24 1:50:14 PM  
anyone who thinks that republicans all agree on the issues is ignorant (look at the budget, foreign involvement, immigration, even issues like abortion. The differnece is republicans are better at keeping behind closed doors (for the most part) and doing their wheeling and dealing there.

The democrats scream it at the top of their lungs in a quite room.
 
captainktainer
2006-07-24 1:50:42 PM  
mediaho: Can we just get rid of the farking parties and have candidates run on their own merits for once?

Parties serve to organize people and allow them to come together behind candidates according to common ideas. Primaries are a competition to see whom party members think best reflect or can best champion the majority of their ideas. And, in that regard, they generally do pretty well. Yeah, it's unpleasant, and it would be better if the system were reformed to allow for the participation of more parties, but getting rid of parties is antithetical to the spirit of free association.
 
captainktainer
2006-07-24 1:52:53 PM  
Shut........UP: The democrats scream it at the top of their lungs in a quite room.

Which is a good thing. Disagreements over national policy should be aired in public, to maximize public awareness of and participation in the debate. The Republican (and pre-New Deal Democrat) method of conducting affairs is antithetical to the principle of open government, and weakens one of the major benefits of democracy: generating and enhancing free and open debate on matters of national consequence.
 
Superjoe
2006-07-24 1:55:50 PM  
Shut........UP
The democrats scream it at the top of their lungs in a quite room.

Uh oh, democracy!
 
clifton
2006-07-24 1:59:37 PM  
Wow, looks like someone who wishes the opposing party would be silent on issues.

Way to make yourselves look good, shut.
 
mediaho
2006-07-24 2:04:03 PM  
captainktainer: but getting rid of parties is antithetical to the spirit of free association.

I don't mean to imply that we should outlaw free association. I just think it would be nice if more people saw the candidate and not the R or D after their name.
 
Shut........UP
2006-07-24 2:05:48 PM  
Who said that clifton? Point out where I said they shouldn't have an opinion or voice that opinion.

I'll wait.
 
captainktainer
2006-07-24 2:13:02 PM  
mediaho: I don't mean to imply that we should outlaw free association. I just think it would be nice if more people saw the candidate and not the R or D after their name.

Ah, my mistake then. I think that, on the whole, they should look at the R or D as an additional bit of information to inform their vote. I think that voters should also become familiar with each party's platform, which people running with the endorsement of the party are presumed to believe in, barring any statements to the contrary. On the whole I'm in agreement- parties are given more importance than they deserve. However, I still feel that they serve a vital purpose, and the Founding Rich White Men's opinion that a healthy republic would not have them was, in my opinion, shortsighted and harmful to the development of politics in this country.
 
Brewer
2006-07-24 2:14:23 PM  
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

-George Washington's Farewell address
 
dj4aces
2006-07-24 2:14:25 PM  
Shut........UP: Point out where I said they shouldn't have an opinion or voice that opinion.

You did state that Republicans tend to voice opinions "behind closed doors," then state Democrats scream it in a "quite[sic] room." This would give the impression that you feel the way clifton pointed out.

Whether or not this is true is not for me to say. However, that's how it came across.
 
AbrahamLincoln
2006-07-24 2:23:20 PM  
In the article, it mentions that Democrats have been united on the issue of lowering the cost of College tuition. Anybody have any links handy on who is supporting this measure and how they're going to do it... or just any more info? Though I'm rather conservative and dislike most Democratic politicians, I'm interested in this issue ... and I work in the enrollment office of a college that has seen its tuition rise up to $37,000/year... which I think is just way too high, even if it's the standard for colleges of our type.

Maybe some of you have some more info?
 
Shut........UP
2006-07-24 2:23:24 PM  
well, that may be what they wanted to read into it. All I said was that republicans were better at presenting a unified front even when they have disagreements on issues like immigration, or the budget. The democrats come across as mean spirited in their attacks of other democrats who don't share their views.

No where in that statement did I say the democrats had right to voice an opinion and after re-reading it, I don't see anyway anyone could have come close to seeing that.

but forget it. same shiat on here as always.
 
BrotherTheodore
2006-07-24 2:33:52 PM  
You all seem to forget that there's a difference between having a valid discourse to develop fluid and progressive political ideologies and WINNING ELECTIONS.
 
Skleenar
2006-07-24 3:05:42 PM  
Anyone at all want to answer my semi-rhetorical question above?

What is so extreme about the Democrats?

Hell, it seems to me that the biggest flap about them is that 'extremists' in their party are (like the majority of America) against the War in Iraq and that they are backing a primary candidate against an incumbent Senator.

Crazy! Extreme! Wackos!
 
Bugs_Bunny_Practiced_Psychological_Warfare
2006-07-24 3:14:28 PM  
Hey submitter, after viewing the article and seeing the posts here, most likely you still don't understand that this is about politics, not a football team.
 
Sensei Can You See [TotalFark]
2006-07-24 3:17:55 PM  
captainktainer: Disagreements over national policy should be aired in public, to maximize public awareness of and participation in the debate.

Heh. For all those sneering at the tendency to support a team, ask yourself what a football game would look like if one team got behind their quarterback--the way we seem to agree the GOP does--and the other team behaved the way the DNC does.

Viz., while the Republicans were out actually playing and winning the game, the Democrats would all be fighting to be head coach, quarterback or both, inciting race riots in the other team members and suing to change NFL rules after they lost.

/just sayin'
 
AgeOfReason
2006-07-24 7:51:05 PM  
The CraneMeister:

Heh. For all those sneering at the tendency to support a team, ask yourself what a football game would look like if one team got behind their quarterback--the way we seem to agree the GOP does--and the other team behaved the way the DNC does.

I hate to break it to you but this is not a football game. Such simplified analogies do an injustice to the complex issues we face today and our political framework we use to make decisions about those issues.
 
OriginallyDC
2006-07-25 12:12:30 AM  
Submitter is obviously one of your typical right wing lacky. Let me spell it out for you.

The GOP agrees on most everything because they have a top down authoritarian style system of control. You are told what to know, told what to believe, and told what to hate.

The Dems disagree on a wide variety of issues because they have a democratically stylized system of intra-party debate which allows for the development of better policies. Each member speaks for him or herself.
 
OriginallyDC
2006-07-25 12:15:41 AM  
And if you (GOP zombies) been properly trained, your brain is probably already working on some sort of rebuttal about how that isn't the case... just as you've seen your GOP pundits do so on Fox News.

//Good training, eh?
 
AbrahamLincoln
2006-07-25 9:20:53 AM  
OriginallyDC,

Does the GOP also carry a pitchfork around while the Democrats wear halos? Your stylizing of both parties is the most innaccurate and whistfully ignorant portrayal I think I've ever seen in one of these pages. I am no Republican, but you don't have to be to see that it is simply, utterly ridiculous.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments


Redisplay/refresh comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More Fark for your buck

learn more | sign up
On Twitter

  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.