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.

(NPR)   Shorter NPR: BSABSVR   (npr.org) divider line 214
    More: Stupid, congresses, Lee University, Civil Rights Act of 1964, major piece, Morris Fiorina  
•       •       •

4377 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2014 at 5:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



214 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-09 02:24:31 PM  
The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.
 
2014-03-09 02:32:36 PM  

StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.


And replace it with....?
 
2014-03-09 02:57:30 PM  

enry: StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.

And replace it with....?


Nothing DUH.

NO NEW!
 
2014-03-09 03:28:56 PM  
I thought it was frowned on to call out Farkers by name in a headline?
 
2014-03-09 05:40:01 PM  
NPR is still all derped up.  They need to clean out Ken Tomlinson's minions.
 
2014-03-09 05:46:37 PM  
I don't get this headline.
 
2014-03-09 05:48:04 PM  
Trolling in the boobies

At least make it good man. GOP is boned in '16
 
2014-03-09 05:52:18 PM  

bboy: I don't get this headline.


http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=bsabsvr#
 
2014-03-09 05:53:57 PM  

Nice Polite Republicans

 
2014-03-09 05:55:23 PM  
Democrats didn't like it in 2005 when President George W. Bush wanted to privatize parts of Social Security, and Republicans have never stopped complaining that Democrats were able to take advantage of their congressional majorities in 2010 to push through the Affordable Care Act.

But privatizing Social Security was a really farking stupid bad idea; and the Affordable Care Act (at least the parts that were a giveaway to the insurance companies) was a really farking stupid Republican bad idea.
 
2014-03-09 05:55:42 PM  

FatherDale: bboy: I don't get this headline.

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=bsabsvr#


Ha!  I get it now.  Thanks!
 
2014-03-09 05:56:35 PM  
Yes, gridlock is awesome.

I also hire babysitters that don't watch my children.
I go to doctors that don't practice medicine.
I go to restaurants that don't make food.
I hire landscapers that don't cut my lawn.

So it's outstanding that I also hire politicians that don't govern.
 
2014-03-09 05:57:59 PM  
"Gridlock is good,"

No, it really isn't.

I get the whole "if they aren't doing anything they aren't doing anything wrong" argument but I still can't see my way clear to cheering government paralysis particularly when it's self induced and almost entirely found on one side.
 
2014-03-09 06:00:07 PM  

StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.


The Derpman strikes again! He vanishes into the darkness!
 
2014-03-09 06:02:32 PM  
It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.
 
2014-03-09 06:09:35 PM  
BSABSVR?

No, I don't quite like the sound of that one.

BSABSVD?

Eh, I went with that one for awhile, but no.

BSABSVC?

Now we're talking.
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-09 06:12:38 PM  

quatchi: I get the whole "if they aren't doing anything they aren't doing anything wrong" argument but I still can't see my way clear to cheering government paralysis particularly when it's self induced and almost entirely found on one side.


No no, spending $25 billion on a government shutdown because Congress can't agree to do even their most basic functions is good for the country because reasons.
 
2014-03-09 06:14:39 PM  

SpacePirate: BSABSVR?

No, I don't quite like the sound of that one.

BSABSVD?

Eh, I went with that one for awhile, but no.

BSABSVC?

Now we're talking.
[img.fark.net image 420x420]


Apropos of nothing, I was a bit disappointed in "Errol" and didn't think his face looked nearly as scarred as I was led to imagine.
 
2014-03-09 06:19:47 PM  
FTFA: A Washington Post-ABC News released Tuesday found that only 22 percent of voters are inclined to give their own representatives another term

And yet they will, won't they?
 
2014-03-09 06:21:37 PM  

Therion: Democrats didn't like it in 2005 when President George W. Bush wanted to privatize parts of Social Security, and Republicans have never stopped complaining that Democrats were able to take advantage of their congressional majorities in 2010 to push through the Affordable Care Act.

But privatizing Social Security was a really farking stupid bad idea; and the Affordable Care Act (at least the parts that were a giveaway to the insurance companies) was a really farking stupid Republican bad idea.


Not even remotely a fair comparison. SS privatization was just terrible policy, the ACA is the compromise legislation. Heck, it would have been the health care reform Bush might of passed.
 
2014-03-09 06:22:58 PM  

fusillade762: It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.


No, no citations for you. Just take their word for it that we're all divided and be content with a gridlocked congress that only benefits the status quo.

:D
 
2014-03-09 06:34:56 PM  

Therion: Democrats didn't like it in 2005 when President George W. Bush wanted to privatize parts of Social Security, and Republicans have never stopped complaining that Democrats were able to take advantage of their congressional majorities in 2010 to push through the Affordable Care Act.

But privatizing Social Security was a really farking stupid bad idea; and the Affordable Care Act (at least the parts that were a giveaway to the insurance companies) was a really farking stupid Republican bad idea.


The ACA is not as bad as you think. It is actually helping people. I know at least 2 people who would not be alive if it was not passed and upheld by the SCOTUS.
 
2014-03-09 06:44:54 PM  
Um, Obama offered to compromise on ACA. Republicans refused. And it hasn't gained widespread support because republicans keep lying about it.

Yeah. BSBSVR.
 
2014-03-09 06:52:16 PM  

Gyrfalcon: StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.


The Derpman strikes again! He vanishes into the darkness!


Who knows what derp herps in the hearts of men?

The Derpman knows.

*stirring chord*

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: quatchi: I get the whole "if they aren't doing anything they aren't doing anything wrong" argument but I still can't see my way clear to cheering government paralysis particularly when it's self induced and almost entirely found on one side.

No no, spending $25 billion on a government shutdown because Congress can't agree to do even their most basic functions is good for the country because reasons.


I see you've studied this out!

In the face of your compelling argument I hereby renounce my former foolish libulardo position.

Now I renounce you for not being pure enough to call it a "slim down".

RINO!
 
2014-03-09 06:53:16 PM  

PanicMan: Um, Obama offered to compromise on ACA. Republicans refused. And it hasn't gained widespread support because republicans keep lying about it.

Yeah. BSBSVR.


Yep. It is really tough to find any facts about the ACA when there are so many lies.
 
2014-03-09 06:54:48 PM  

The Name: Nice Polite Republicans

 
2014-03-09 06:55:55 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Therion: Democrats didn't like it in 2005 when President George W. Bush wanted to privatize parts of Social Security, and Republicans have never stopped complaining that Democrats were able to take advantage of their congressional majorities in 2010 to push through the Affordable Care Act.

But privatizing Social Security was a really farking stupid bad idea; and the Affordable Care Act (at least the parts that were a giveaway to the insurance companies) was a really farking stupid Republican bad idea.

The ACA is not as bad as you think. It is actually helping people. I know at least 2 people who would not be alive if it was not passed and upheld by the SCOTUS.


The pre-existing condition coverage really was a godsend, but ACA is still a shiatty bandaid that doesn't come close to a proper single payer system. We've got a ways to go and I'm afraid the "forced privatized insurance for all!" model might stick around longer than some of you might like.
 
2014-03-09 06:55:56 PM  
Is Gridlock Good?

No.
 
2014-03-09 06:56:50 PM  
Neither party is happy when the other attempts to ram through one-sided legislation. Democrats didn't like it in 2005 when President George W. Bush wanted to privatize parts of Social Security, and Republicans have never stopped complaining that Democrats were able to take advantage of their congressional majorities in 2010 to push through the Affordable Care Act.

God, someone needs to slap this guy. Hurr durr both sides the same.
 
2014-03-09 07:02:32 PM  
You know you gone off the deep end when you lambaste NPR for not being partisan enough for you.
 
2014-03-09 07:08:07 PM  

super_grass: You know you gone off the deep end when you lambaste NPR for not being partisan enough for you.


Not fair and balanced enough for ya?
 
2014-03-09 07:12:41 PM  

SoupGuru: Yes, gridlock is awesome.

I also hire babysitters that don't watch my children.
I go to doctors that don't practice medicine.
I go to restaurants that don't make food.
I hire landscapers that don't cut my lawn.

So it's outstanding that I also hire politicians that don't govern.


You're not familiar with the concepts behind the founding of America, are you?  Federalism?  Separation of powers?  Anything ring a bell?
 
2014-03-09 07:13:38 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: super_grass: You know you gone off the deep end when you lambaste NPR for not being partisan enough for you.

Not fair and balanced enough for ya?


Liberals just irritate him. Especially those who vote Democrat. Nothing to see here.
 
2014-03-09 07:15:04 PM  

SpacePirate: Zeppelininthesky: Therion: Democrats didn't like it in 2005 when President George W. Bush wanted to privatize parts of Social Security, and Republicans have never stopped complaining that Democrats were able to take advantage of their congressional majorities in 2010 to push through the Affordable Care Act.

But privatizing Social Security was a really farking stupid bad idea; and the Affordable Care Act (at least the parts that were a giveaway to the insurance companies) was a really farking stupid Republican bad idea.

The ACA is not as bad as you think. It is actually helping people. I know at least 2 people who would not be alive if it was not passed and upheld by the SCOTUS.

The pre-existing condition coverage really was a godsend, but ACA is still a shiatty bandaid that doesn't come close to a proper single payer system. We've got a ways to go and I'm afraid the "forced privatized insurance for all!" model might stick around longer than some of you might like.


Yeah, single payer is best. It will never happen here because the insurance companies are way too large. It would take a massive effort and would put them out of business. That said, it is not actually a bad law. It will save money in the long run and forces the insurance companies to spend money for healthcare instead of stock options and other stuff.
 
2014-03-09 07:16:24 PM  

Emposter: FTFA: A Washington Post-ABC News released Tuesday found that only 22 percent of voters are inclined to give their own representatives another term

And yet they will, won't they?


I think it's optimistic to assume that as many as 22% of voters even know who their representative is.
 
2014-03-09 07:17:09 PM  

whidbey: Neither party is happy when the other attempts to ram through one-sided legislation. Democrats didn't like it in 2005 when President George W. Bush wanted to privatize parts of Social Security, and Republicans have never stopped complaining that Democrats were able to take advantage of their congressional majorities in 2010 to push through the Affordable Care Act.

God, someone needs to slap this guy. Hurr durr both sides the same.


Agreed, after all, everyone knows they only come together occasionally to pass civil liberty destroying legislation like the Patriot Act. Good luck getting them all into the same room otherwise!
 
2014-03-09 07:18:54 PM  

Phinn: SoupGuru: Yes, gridlock is awesome.

I also hire babysitters that don't watch my children.
I go to doctors that don't practice medicine.
I go to restaurants that don't make food.
I hire landscapers that don't cut my lawn.

So it's outstanding that I also hire politicians that don't govern.

You're not familiar with the concepts behind the founding of America, are you?  Federalism?  Separation of powers?  Anything ring a bell?


Yep. The teabaggers are not, however.
 
2014-03-09 07:20:42 PM  

enry: StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.

And replace it with....?


Poor people dying.  Just like god intended.
 
2014-03-09 07:21:47 PM  

Therion: But privatizing Social Security was a really farking stupid bad idea


Could you imagine the riots in late 2008 if that had actually gone through?
 
2014-03-09 07:21:48 PM  

SpacePirate: they only come together occasionally to pass civil liberty destroying legislation like the Patriot Act.


Um, you might want to actually revisit the reasons why that got passed before you go all Ron Paul on us here.

Kind of doubt you're going to do that research, though.
 
2014-03-09 07:22:54 PM  

Phinn: You're not familiar with the concepts behind the founding of America, are you?  Federalism?  Separation of powers?  Anything ring a bell?


While that's all good and all, you do need to get shiat done eventually, like basic shiat such budgets and allocating money to things, or fixing shiat you farked up previously. That's the kinda things that should be done in Congress regardless. Major legislation may require a bit more to get through, but shiat like budgets should be a no-brainer. The fact that we can't even pass that is more telling of a broken Congress than the fact that we managed to get healthcare reform
 
2014-03-09 07:23:26 PM  

Great_Milenko: enry: StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.

And replace it with....?

Poor people dying.  Just like god intended.


Great_Milenko: enry: StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.

And replace it with....?

Poor people dying.  Just like god intended.


They will replace it with tax cuts for the rich and elimination of food stamps. Couple that with closing woman's clinics and the "healthcare" plan is complete.
 
2014-03-09 07:28:11 PM  

Shakin_Haitian: super_grass: You know you gone off the deep end when you lambaste NPR for not being partisan enough for you.

Not fair and balanced enough for ya?


Doesn't pass my personal, arbitrary purity test for media sources.
 
2014-03-09 07:30:18 PM  

whidbey: SpacePirate: they only come together occasionally to pass civil liberty destroying legislation like the Patriot Act.

Um, you might want to actually revisit the reasons why that got passed before you go all Ron Paul on us here.

Kind of doubt you're going to do that research, though.


Yes, because only hardcore Paul supporters care about the 4th amendment and the Bill of Rights. Yay?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of -t he-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html
 
2014-03-09 07:32:33 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Trolling in the boobies

At least make it good man. GOP is boned in '16


I use $1s and $5s as bait when I troll for boobies.
 
2014-03-09 07:33:37 PM  

SpacePirate: whidbey: SpacePirate: they only come together occasionally to pass civil liberty destroying legislation like the Patriot Act.

Um, you might want to actually revisit the reasons why that got passed before you go all Ron Paul on us here.

Kind of doubt you're going to do that research, though.

Yes, because only hardcore Paul supporters care about the 4th amendment and the Bill of Rights. Yay?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of -t he-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html


Yep.

You don't want to actually do any real research as to why Democrats voted for it

Called that one. Also your blog sucks.
 
2014-03-09 07:41:48 PM  
Even NPR is being accused of being Republican, now?
 
2014-03-09 07:45:31 PM  

whidbey: SpacePirate: whidbey: SpacePirate: they only come together occasionally to pass civil liberty destroying legislation like the Patriot Act.

Um, you might want to actually revisit the reasons why that got passed before you go all Ron Paul on us here.

Kind of doubt you're going to do that research, though.

Yes, because only hardcore Paul supporters care about the 4th amendment and the Bill of Rights. Yay?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of -t he-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html

Yep.

You don't want to actually do any real research as to why Democrats voted for it

Called that one. Also your blog sucks.


Thanks for all those amazing arguments, links and citations proving me wrong. Then after campaigning against it as a lolconstitutional law professor, Obama definitely didn't do a complete 180 and expand those powers once elected. That didn't happen either, I guess.

I'd bet it probably went down like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUTIPQxo21c

/my blog is pretty shiatty, actually
 
2014-03-09 07:46:04 PM  

SpacePirate: whidbey: SpacePirate: they only come together occasionally to pass civil liberty destroying legislation like the Patriot Act.

Um, you might want to actually revisit the reasons why that got passed before you go all Ron Paul on us here.

Kind of doubt you're going to do that research, though.

Yes, because only hardcore Paul supporters care about the 4th amendment and the Bill of Rights. Yay?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of -t he-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html


This is why we should have elected Romney. People will start caring about stuff like this again.
 
2014-03-09 07:46:50 PM  

whidbey: You don't want to actually do any real research as to why Democrats voted for it


You say that as if there are any set of reasons that would justify them voting for it.

If Dick Cheney was threatening to force lightning their kids if they didn't, then I still wouldn't give them a pass.
 
2014-03-09 07:48:05 PM  

BMFPitt: Even NPR is being accused of being Republican, now?


They do bend over backwards to maintain an appearance of balance on many issues.

They also seem to have gotten worse over the last couple years.

I wouldn't call that Republican though.
 
2014-03-09 07:49:44 PM  

whidbey: Is Gridlock Good?

No.


Well, that was a short article. Now on to the next topic!
 
2014-03-09 07:49:50 PM  

Smackledorfer: I wouldn't call that Republican though.


Subby would, apparently.
 
2014-03-09 07:52:42 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-09 07:54:21 PM  

JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]


Jesus, did Obama's magical time machine send you back to a 2006 Geocities site?
 
2014-03-09 07:57:13 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: You don't want to actually do any real research as to why Democrats voted for it

You say that as if there are any set of reasons that would justify them voting for it.

If Dick Cheney was threatening to force lightning their kids if they didn't, then I still wouldn't give them a pass.


It's just stupid and disingenuous to proclaim that both parties were lockstep in supporting PATRIOT given the "you're either for us or against us" attitude the Bush administration intimidated everyone with.

Almost as dumb of an argument of making Bush's privatizing of Social Security on par with Republicans shutting down the government over ACA.
 
2014-03-09 07:58:15 PM  

super_grass: SpacePirate: whidbey: SpacePirate: they only come together occasionally to pass civil liberty destroying legislation like the Patriot Act.

Um, you might want to actually revisit the reasons why that got passed before you go all Ron Paul on us here.

Kind of doubt you're going to do that research, though.

Yes, because only hardcore Paul supporters care about the 4th amendment and the Bill of Rights. Yay?

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of -t he-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html

This is why we should have elected Romney. People will start caring about stuff like this again.


No shiat. Suddenly our guy is in power and half of my liberal friends go full blown apologist, even with things becoming demonstrably worse.
 
2014-03-09 08:02:07 PM  

SpacePirate: Thanks for all those amazing arguments, links and citations proving me wrong.


Your entire argument is biased, speculative and disingenuous.

Again , I would urge you to do some actual research on the political climate post 911/pre-Iraq.

Until then. you're just talking shiat.
 
2014-03-09 08:06:35 PM  

whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: You don't want to actually do any real research as to why Democrats voted for it

You say that as if there are any set of reasons that would justify them voting for it.

If Dick Cheney was threatening to force lightning their kids if they didn't, then I still wouldn't give them a pass.

It's just stupid and disingenuous to proclaim that both parties were lockstep in supporting PATRIOT given the "you're either for us or against us" attitude the Bush administration intimidated everyone with.

Almost as dumb of an argument of making Bush's privatizing of Social Security on par with Republicans shutting down the government over ACA.


whidbey, I'm surprised at you. You usually have the attitude that everyone should do the right thing and divvil take the hindermost. The fact that there were reasons for voting 99-0 for the Patriot Act in Senate ten days after 9/11 with no debate does not make them GOOD reasons; and giving anyone a pass for doing so means giving all of them a pass. Any reason for passing the Patriot Act like they did was a bad reason, regardless of whether it was "I just want to spy on everyone with impunity" or whether it was "the Republicans are calling us all traitors so I better vote yes so I don't look bad."

Given the tenor of the times, there were likely just as many Democrats who were happy for the chance to expand the parameters of domestic spying; and just as many Republicans who would have preferred to vote against the act but didn't want to take the chance of being labeled unpatriotic. But regardless, all of them are worthy of censure.
 
2014-03-09 08:09:07 PM  

img.fark.netsuper_grass: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

Jesus, did Obama's magical time machine send you back to a 2006 Geocities site?

 
2014-03-09 08:14:30 PM  

Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: You don't want to actually do any real research as to why Democrats voted for it

You say that as if there are any set of reasons that would justify them voting for it.

If Dick Cheney was threatening to force lightning their kids if they didn't, then I still wouldn't give them a pass.

It's just stupid and disingenuous to proclaim that both parties were lockstep in supporting PATRIOT given the "you're either for us or against us" attitude the Bush administration intimidated everyone with.

Almost as dumb of an argument of making Bush's privatizing of Social Security on par with Republicans shutting down the government over ACA.

whidbey, I'm surprised at you. You usually have the attitude that everyone should do the right thing and divvil take the hindermost. The fact that there were reasons for voting 99-0 for the Patriot Act in Senate ten days after 9/11 with no debate does not make them GOOD reasons; and giving anyone a pass for doing so means giving all of them a pass. Any reason for passing the Patriot Act like they did was a bad reason, regardless of whether it was "I just want to spy on everyone with impunity" or whether it was "the Republicans are calling us all traitors so I better vote yes so I don't look bad."

Given the tenor of the times, there were likely just as many Democrats who were happy for the chance to expand the parameters of domestic spying; and just as many Republicans who would have preferred to vote against the act but didn't want to take the chance of being labeled unpatriotic. But regardless, all of them are worthy of censure.


Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: You don't want to actually do any real research as to why Democrats voted for it

You say that as if there are any set of reasons that would justify them voting for it.

If Dick Cheney was threatening to force lightning their kids if they didn't, then I still wouldn't give them a pass.

It's just stupid and disingenuous to proclaim that both parties were lockstep in supporting PATRIOT given the "you're either for us or against us" attitude the Bush administration intimidated everyone with.

Almost as dumb of an argument of making Bush's privatizing of Social Security on par with Republicans shutting down the government over ACA.


whidbey, I'm surprised at you. You usually have the attitude that everyone should do the right thing and divvil take the hindermost. The fact that there were reasons for voting 99-0 for the Patriot Act in Senate ten days after 9/11 with no debate does not make them GOOD reasons; and giving anyone a pass for doing so means giving all of them a pass. Any reason for passing the Patriot Act like they did was a bad reason, regardless of whether it was "I just want to spy on everyone with impunity" or whether it was "the Republicans are calling us all traitors so I better vote yes so I don't look bad."

Given the tenor of the times, there were likely just as many Democrats who were happy for the chance to expand the parameters of domestic spying; and just as many Republicans who would have preferred to vote against the act but didn't want to take the chance of being labeled unpatriotic. But regardless, all of them are worthy of censure.


I still can't believe we're playing this game. It is well-documented that the Bush administration shoved PATRIOT down Congress's throat post 9-11. Sure as I was as pissed as everyone else that Democrats voted for it until that came out. Congress was expected to vote it in, with very little time if any to read it.

History shows that this is a Bush administration accomplishment, and that once this kind of wide-sweeping policy is implemented, it is almost impossible to get rid of it, especially given the foreign policy cleanup following the Bush years.

But regardless, all of them are worthy of censure

I don't agree. If they voted it in under panicked circumstances where the Bush administration and other social conservatives were bullying them as to their actual patriotism, then it is NOT an open and shut case.

And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.
 
2014-03-09 08:16:49 PM  

whidbey: It's just stupid and disingenuous to proclaim that both parties were lockstep in supporting PATRIOT given the "you're either for us or against us" attitude the Bush administration intimidated everyone with.


As stated, if they are that easily intimidated, they had no place in Congress.

Almost as dumb of an argument of making Bush's privatizing of Social Security on par with Republicans shutting down the government over ACA.

That sentence made no sense, but it's not like it would have made any more sense of constructed properly.
 
2014-03-09 08:21:08 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: It's just stupid and disingenuous to proclaim that both parties were lockstep in supporting PATRIOT given the "you're either for us or against us" attitude the Bush administration intimidated everyone with.

As stated, if they are that easily intimidated, they had no place in Congress.


Bullshiat. Even I went along with what Bush was saying, and I farked hated him.

Almost as dumb of an argument of making Bush's privatizing of Social Security on par with Republicans shutting down the government over ACA.

That sentence made no sense, but it's not like it would have made any more sense of constructed properly.


It made compete sense.

Bush's privatizing of Social Security would have been disastrous and would have demonstrated a total disregard for the concept of a social welfare. ACA has already insured millions of people.

It is a totally bullshiat comparison and you know it.
 
2014-03-09 08:23:10 PM  

whidbey: Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.


Yeah, Obama, Hillary and Co. definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act in 2011. Nor did they expand upon it with the NDAA. It's all those social conservative's fault. Dude..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8
 
2014-03-09 08:26:13 PM  

SpacePirate: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.

Yeah, Obama, Hillary and Co. definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act in 2011. Nor did they expand upon it with the NDAA. It's all those social conservative's fault. Dude..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8


The NDAA is the routine bill that pays our military. The 'expansion' was tacked onto it, because those involved knew that holding it up or vetoing it would be political suicide.
 
2014-03-09 08:27:05 PM  

whidbey: Bullshiat. Even I went along with what Bush was saying, and I farked hated him.

Bush's privatizing of Social Security would have been disastrous and would have demonstrated a total disregard for the concept of a social welfare. ACA has already insured millions of people.


His plan to abolish social security, but still tax the hell out of young people to pay to wind it down was pretty stupid.  I just don't see how it is in any way relevant.

It is a totally bullshiat comparison and you know it.

So why are you making it?
 
2014-03-09 08:27:53 PM  

whidbey: Bullshiat. Even I went along with what Bush was saying, and I farked hated him.


One more reason I wouldn't want you in Congress.
 
2014-03-09 08:28:42 PM  

whidbey: Bush's privatizing of Social Security would have been disastrous and would have demonstrated a total disregard for the concept of a social welfare.


Oh come on. What could possibly have happened that would have made having large amounts of your retirement money in the stock market a bad idea?
 
2014-03-09 08:29:11 PM  

SpacePirate: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.

Yeah, Obama, Hillary and Co. definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act in 2011. Nor did they expand upon it with the NDAA. It's all those social conservative's fault. Dude..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8


You've clearly made your mind up.

You're not going to research some of the reasons why these things happened, you're just going to trust some soundbite that continues to reinforce your weak arguments.

Again, I can't believe we're still discussing this, that somehow Bush didn't totally fark up this country while in office, and that Obama is not the dictator you're looking for to somehow magically undo everything.

You just want cherry picked answers. And this is the 3rd time I've reminded you that you are not willing to find other pieces of the story.
 
2014-03-09 08:29:53 PM  

JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]


If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.
 
2014-03-09 08:30:26 PM  

LordJiro: SpacePirate: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.

Yeah, Obama, Hillary and Co. definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act in 2011. Nor did they expand upon it with the NDAA. It's all those social conservative's fault. Dude..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

The NDAA is the routine bill that pays our military. The 'expansion' was tacked onto it, because those involved knew that holding it up or vetoing it would be political suicide.


Good, I'm glad they avoided that. All they did was guarantee those that did will never get my vote ever again. But I'm just one guy that pays attention, so who cares.
 
2014-03-09 08:31:21 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: Bullshiat. Even I went along with what Bush was saying, and I farked hated him.

Bush's privatizing of Social Security would have been disastrous and would have demonstrated a total disregard for the concept of a social welfare. ACA has already insured millions of people.

His plan to abolish social security, but still tax the hell out of young people to pay to wind it down was pretty stupid.  I just don't see how it is in any way relevant.

It is a totally bullshiat comparison and you know it.

So why are you making it?


NPR made the comparison, not me. Try to keep up.


whidbey: Bullshiat. Even I went along with what Bush was saying, and I farked hated him.


One more reason I wouldn't want you in Congress.


hurr u troll me
 
2014-03-09 08:32:10 PM  

SpacePirate: LordJiro: SpacePirate: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.

Yeah, Obama, Hillary and Co. definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act in 2011. Nor did they expand upon it with the NDAA. It's all those social conservative's fault. Dude..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

The NDAA is the routine bill that pays our military. The 'expansion' was tacked onto it, because those involved knew that holding it up or vetoing it would be political suicide.

Good, I'm glad they avoided that. All they did was guarantee those that did will never get my vote ever again. But I'm just one guy that pays attention, so who cares.


You didn't pay attention to that. But no hurr durr IMPEACH.
 
2014-03-09 08:33:54 PM  

whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: You don't want to actually do any real research as to why Democrats voted for it

You say that as if there are any set of reasons that would justify them voting for it.

If Dick Cheney was threatening to force lightning their kids if they didn't, then I still wouldn't give them a pass.

It's just stupid and disingenuous to proclaim that both parties were lockstep in supporting PATRIOT given the "you're either for us or against us" attitude the Bush administration intimidated everyone with.

Almost as dumb of an argument of making Bush's privatizing of Social Security on par with Republicans shutting down the government over ACA.


And that excuses them for voting for it (and renewing it)? Because Bush insulted them if they wouldn't vote for it? My god, you really are a partisan hack.
 
2014-03-09 08:35:54 PM  

whidbey: SpacePirate: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.

Yeah, Obama, Hillary and Co. definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act in 2011. Nor did they expand upon it with the NDAA. It's all those social conservative's fault. Dude..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

You've clearly made your mind up.

You're not going to research some of the reasons why these things happened, you're just going to trust some soundbite that continues to reinforce your weak arguments.

Again, I can't believe we're still discussing this, that somehow Bush didn't totally fark up this country while in office, and that Obama is not the dictator you're looking for to somehow magically undo everything.

You just want cherry picked answers. And this is the 3rd time I've reminded you that you are not willing to find other pieces of the story.


The only possible defense I can think of is that once elected, they realized the depths of how farked up the world might really be and changed their minds. But I doubt that, and I suppose we wouldn't find out if that was the case. But that's not your argument. Your argument amounts to, "Boo, they were intimidated so it didn't really countlol" Even years later after extensions and expansions. You can be a real troll when you want to be. :P
 
2014-03-09 08:36:15 PM  

machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.


My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.
 
2014-03-09 08:36:24 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Oh come on. What could possibly have happened that would have made having large amounts of your retirement money in the stock market a bad idea?


Well of you had invested all your money at the exact peak and then made no contributions after that, you'd be down slightly.
 
2014-03-09 08:39:30 PM  

SpacePirate: You just want cherry picked answers. And this is the 3rd time I've reminded you that you are not willing to find other pieces of the story.


The only possible defense I can think of is that once elected, they realized the depths of how farked up the world might really be and changed their minds. But I doubt that, and I suppose we wouldn't find out if that was the case. But that's not your argument. Your argument amounts to, "Boo, they were intimidated so it didn't really countlol" Even years later after extensions and expansions. You can be a real troll when you want to be. :P


Not trolling at all. The reason why PATRIOT hasn't been repealed or Gitmo closed is because Obama is not a dictator and Congress has more than its share of warmongering social conservatives. That's what you're not getting and frankly, I don't expect you to.
 
2014-03-09 08:42:01 PM  

whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.


Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it
 
2014-03-09 08:45:02 PM  

machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it


How many cons voted to not renew?

I'll wait.
 
2014-03-09 08:47:02 PM  

Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.


...and I think your army of lawyers would advise you to not waste your, or their, time.
 
2014-03-09 08:47:54 PM  

GoodDoctorB: machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it

How many cons voted to not renew?

I'll wait.


I am pretty sure nearly all voted to renew it, but apparently you don't realize there is a concept that both parties are not exactly a fan of civil liberties. Where did I say the Republicans were against renewing it? Or are you one of those "HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT DEMOCRATS! HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!" types that are so common here?
 
2014-03-09 08:48:25 PM  

machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it


I don't agree with their decision to renew or expand PATRIOT, but clearly the reasons lie with the failed foreign policy decisions made during the Bush years. And yes, there is still a stigma in Congress about not being "tough enough" on national defense.

It still doesn't make SpacePirate's.  disingenuous arguments any more tenable. Or yours, if you're going along with them.

All you're trying to do is make Obama supporters feel guilty so you can trot out your neo-confederate bullshiat.
 
2014-03-09 08:50:19 PM  

whidbey: machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it

I don't agree with their decision to renew or expand PATRIOT, but clearly the reasons lie with the failed foreign policy decisions made during the Bush years. And yes, there is still a stigma in Congress about not being "tough enough" on national defense.

It still doesn't make SpacePirate's.  disingenuous arguments any more tenable. Or yours, if you're going along with them.

All you're trying to do is make Obama supporters feel guilty so you can trot out your neo-confederate bullshiat.


Wow, that is a new one. I bet you are into social justice and are anti-privilege too, aren't you?

Apparently you don't read any of my other posts and see I frequently rag on Republicans, too, but sure. Keep believing I am a Republican
 
2014-03-09 08:53:07 PM  

machoprogrammer: GoodDoctorB: machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it

How many cons voted to not renew?

I'll wait.

I am pretty sure nearly all voted to renew it, but apparently you don't realize there is a concept that both parties are not exactly a fan of civil liberties. Where did I say the Republicans were against renewing it? Or are you one of those "HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT DEMOCRATS! HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!" types that are so common here?


And yet, you were exclusively calling out dems for it. Weird, no idea why I jumped to that conclusion.
 
2014-03-09 08:54:19 PM  

machoprogrammer: Apparently you don't read any of my other posts and see I frequently rag on Republicans, too, but sure. Keep believing I am a Republican


I've never seen you "rag on Republicans," ever. Just saying. I suspect you are either a recovering Republican, or right-leaning libertarian, which is the same thing.

However, I am willing to retreat on the "neo-confederate" accusation if you're willing to admit that Ron Paul is a nutcase in that vein and is not Presidential material.
 
2014-03-09 08:56:08 PM  

whidbey: machoprogrammer: Apparently you don't read any of my other posts and see I frequently rag on Republicans, too, but sure. Keep believing I am a Republican

I've never seen you "rag on Republicans," ever. Just saying. I suspect you are either a recovering Republican, or right-leaning libertarian, which is the same thing.

However, I am willing to retreat on the "neo-confederate" accusation if you're willing to admit that Ron Paul is a nutcase in that vein and is not Presidential material.


I agree 100% with the quoted and bolded statement
 
2014-03-09 08:57:22 PM  

machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: Apparently you don't read any of my other posts and see I frequently rag on Republicans, too, but sure. Keep believing I am a Republican

I've never seen you "rag on Republicans," ever. Just saying. I suspect you are either a recovering Republican, or right-leaning libertarian, which is the same thing.

However, I am willing to retreat on the "neo-confederate" accusation if you're willing to admit that Ron Paul is a nutcase in that vein and is not Presidential material.

I agree 100% with the quoted and bolded statement


All right. Well, I'll remember that next time.
 
2014-03-09 08:58:20 PM  

GoodDoctorB: machoprogrammer: GoodDoctorB: machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it

How many cons voted to not renew?

I'll wait.

I am pretty sure nearly all voted to renew it, but apparently you don't realize there is a concept that both parties are not exactly a fan of civil liberties. Where did I say the Republicans were against renewing it? Or are you one of those "HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT DEMOCRATS! HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!" types that are so common here?

And yet, you were exclusively calling out dems for it. Weird, no idea why I jumped to that conclusion.


Well, that is because they were talking exclusively about Democrats voting for the Patriot Act and never mentioned Republicans. They never mentioned Republicans, so I didn't either. I like to keep conversations within scope. I don't feel the need to point out that Republicans are retarded in all of my posts, because pretty much everyone should assume they are by this point
 
2014-03-09 09:04:18 PM  
both sides are bad so vote for my dick

my d 2016
 
2014-03-09 09:04:59 PM  

whidbey: machoprogrammer: Apparently you don't read any of my other posts and see I frequently rag on Republicans, too, but sure. Keep believing I am a Republican

I've never seen you "rag on Republicans," ever. Just saying. I suspect you are either a recovering Republican, or right-leaning libertarian, which is the same thing.

However, I am willing to retreat on the "neo-confederate" accusation if you're willing to admit that Ron Paul is a nutcase in that vein and is not Presidential material.


Man, you're like the Anti-Paul. Do you have nightmares about him in your sleep? He's marginalized enough as it is. There's better isolationists out there though, for sure, without all the kooky beliefs. Dennis Kucinich is basically my Ron Paul right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-US_dF58Rw  Definitely not Republican Presidential material. Icky.
 
2014-03-09 09:05:06 PM  

machoprogrammer: GoodDoctorB: machoprogrammer: GoodDoctorB: machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it

How many cons voted to not renew?

I'll wait.

I am pretty sure nearly all voted to renew it, but apparently you don't realize there is a concept that both parties are not exactly a fan of civil liberties. Where did I say the Republicans were against renewing it? Or are you one of those "HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT DEMOCRATS! HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!" types that are so common here?

And yet, you were exclusively calling out dems for it. Weird, no idea why I jumped to that conclusion.

Well, that is because they were talking exclusively about Democrats voting for the Patriot Act and never mentioned Republicans. They never mentioned Republicans, so I didn't either. I like to keep conversations within scope. I don't feel the need to point out that Republicans are retarded in all of my posts, because pretty much everyone should assume they are by this point


Fair enough, but if you're seriously not trying to sound like a water-carrying conservabot, I'd try a bit harder not to paint something as despised and complicated as the PATRIOT act as a one-sided issue.
 
2014-03-09 09:07:04 PM  

SpacePirate: Dennis Kucinich is basically my Ron Paul right now.


He was all right, but he got stupid too, especially in the past few years.

At least he isn't a total prude.
 
2014-03-09 09:09:39 PM  

whidbey: SpacePirate: Dennis Kucinich is basically my Ron Paul right now.

He was all right, but he got stupid too, especially in the past few years.

At least he isn't a total prude.


That, and I doubt he'll be showing up on any "top 6 dem candidates for 2016" lists.
 
2014-03-09 09:09:48 PM  

machoprogrammer: Or are you one of those "HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT DEMOCRATS! HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!" types that are so common here?


He is their king.
 
2014-03-09 09:11:48 PM  

Jackson Herring: both sides are bad so vote for my dick

my d 2016


"Crank up the D, in 2016"  Hey it almost rhymes, what do you want for free
 
2014-03-09 09:11:49 PM  
Guess that's what happens when one party's idea of compromise is "No. You get nothing. Go fark yourself."
 
2014-03-09 09:12:02 PM  

whidbey: SpacePirate: Dennis Kucinich is basically my Ron Paul right now.

He was all right, but he got stupid too, especially in the past few years.

At least he isn't a total prude.


Nah, he's not too bad. Check him out recently:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130819/01445524226/rep-dennis-kuc in ich-abolish-nsa-give-snowden-parade.shtml 

He got primaried for telling the truth a little bit too often, IMO. Haha, it'd be hard for him to be a prude with that smoking hot wife of his.
 
2014-03-09 09:13:19 PM  

BMFPitt: machoprogrammer: Or are you one of those "HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT DEMOCRATS! HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!" types that are so common here?

He is their king.


Wow, really? Sweet. Must've been an easy vetting process, I get to post, like, 5-7 times a month these days.
 
2014-03-09 09:22:10 PM  

GoodDoctorB: BMFPitt: machoprogrammer: Or are you one of those "HE SAID SOMETHING BAD ABOUT DEMOCRATS! HE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN!!!!!" types that are so common here?

He is their king.

Wow, really? Sweet. Must've been an easy vetting process, I get to post, like, 5-7 times a month these days.


Actually the posts got blurred together and I thought he was responding to whidbey.

Sorry to disappoint.  But if you would like to be favorited as someone who sees imaginary Republicans everywhere, I can do that for you.
 
2014-03-09 09:22:55 PM  

whidbey: machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it

I don't agree with their decision to renew or expand PATRIOT, but clearly the reasons lie with the failed foreign policy decisions made during the Bush years. And yes, there is still a stigma in Congress about not being "tough enough" on national defense.


This. Democrats aren't perfect, by any means; We need a far, FAR more liberal party with power if we're ever gonna progress as a nation. But as it is, we have a choice between the people who voted for the PATRIOT act due to political pressure, and the people who wrote it. A choice between the people who voted for the NDAA to pay our troops, and the people who attached an asinine rider to it.

/Incidentally, the rider didn't actually do anything anyway; everything the rider permitted was already legal due to Bush's AUMF that passed a week after 9/11. Adding it in was a purely political move that changed nothing.
 
2014-03-09 09:23:44 PM  

SpacePirate: whidbey: SpacePirate: Dennis Kucinich is basically my Ron Paul right now.

He was all right, but he got stupid too, especially in the past few years.

At least he isn't a total prude.

Nah, he's not too bad. Check him out recently:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130819/01445524226/rep-dennis-kuc in ich-abolish-nsa-give-snowden-parade.shtml


I agree with him, but obviously he doesn't deal with government hardliners who would pressure him to keep the NSA going.

He got primaried for telling the truth a little bit too often, IMO. Haha, it'd be hard for him to be a prude with that smoking hot wife of his.

I just don't think he's going to get anywhere. He has a lot of good ideas, but he's just too extreme. It's like pick one big cause and stick with it. Doesn't bode well for moderate support.
 
2014-03-09 09:26:48 PM  

BMFPitt: Actually the posts got blurred together and I thought he was responding to whidbey.


haha

first you complain that Fark is an echo chamber because your arguments don't get any traction

and now since you don't have any real criticisms of Obama it must be because people like me are just lockstep lackeys.

Dude. Just too funny.
 
2014-03-09 09:27:19 PM  

StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.


Hopefully start by extending Obamacare to cover everyone with "Medicaid for All".

FITY.
 
2014-03-09 09:30:05 PM  

fusillade762: It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.


Really? You're going to need a citation on the statement that the public is divided on:

abortion
capital punishment
health care reform
military spending
gay marriage

Do I need to go on?

You really think the public is in agreement on any of those?

I'm a liberal as they come, but come on... you can't ignore reality. Not everybody agrees with you.
 
2014-03-09 09:33:25 PM  

dave2198: fusillade762: It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.

Really? You're going to need a citation on the statement that the public is divided on:

abortion
capital punishment
health care reform
military spending
gay marriage

Do I need to go on?

You really think the public is in agreement on any of those?

I'm a liberal as they come, but come on... you can't ignore reality. Not everybody agrees with you.


This. If the public had any sense of unity, they would have told the social conservatives in Congress to fark off by now. And given that the House and Senate are going to see seats won by the Republicans,

they haven't.
 
2014-03-09 09:34:48 PM  

LordJiro: whidbey: machoprogrammer: whidbey: machoprogrammer: My god, you really are a partisan hack.

My god you really don't have any real rebuttal to my comments.

Apparently you didn't read my post there, bro, so I will repeat the gist of my post. How is the "you're either for us or against us" attitude of the Bush administration justification for not only enacting it, but renewing it later? I will give those voting for it 10 days after 9/11 a slight pass (although they should've known better and actually read it, since you know, it is their job), but renewing it? There's no excuse for that shiat and you know it

I don't agree with their decision to renew or expand PATRIOT, but clearly the reasons lie with the failed foreign policy decisions made during the Bush years. And yes, there is still a stigma in Congress about not being "tough enough" on national defense.

This. Democrats aren't perfect, by any means; We need a far, FAR more liberal party with power if we're ever gonna progress as a nation. But as it is, we have a choice between the people who voted for the PATRIOT act due to political pressure, and the people who wrote it. A choice between the people who voted for the NDAA to pay our troops, and the people who attached an asinine rider to it.

/Incidentally, the rider didn't actually do anything anyway; everything the rider permitted was already legal due to Bush's AUMF that passed a week after 9/11. Adding it in was a purely political move that changed nothing.


Here I go again, having to link to that shiatty blog and wikipedia. Inform yourself.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/joe-biden-drafted-the-core-of -t he-patriot-act-in-1995-before-the-oklahoma-city-bombing.html 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995 

whidbey: SpacePirate: whidbey: SpacePirate: Dennis Kucinich is basically my Ron Paul right now.

He was all right, but he got stupid too, especially in the past few years.

At least he isn't a total prude.

Nah, he's not too bad. Check him out recently:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130819/01445524226/rep-dennis-kuc in ich-abolish-nsa-give-snowden-parade.shtml

I agree with him, but obviously he doesn't deal with government hardliners who would pressure him to keep the NSA going.

He got primaried for telling the truth a little bit too often, IMO. Haha, it'd be hard for him to be a prude with that smoking hot wife of his.

I just don't think he's going to get anywhere. He has a lot of good ideas, but he's just too extreme. It's like pick one big cause and stick with it. Doesn't bode well for moderate support.


That's possible, but if you're going to go for it, you might as well go big or go home. I don't think the Tea Party is a threat on the Presidential level at this point, anyway. Rand (ohshiat, I name-dropped a Paul, forgive me) would even back him up on that one.

Really, I'm going to be looking for any non-establishment types in the '16 primaries. With a voting record this time hopefully.
 
2014-03-09 09:36:22 PM  

whidbey: first you complain that Fark is an echo chamber because your arguments don't get any traction


Or I mocked some people it was a thread where they were telling each other they "weren't liberal enough" and complaining about imaginary Republicans.  One or the other.

and now since you don't have any real criticisms of Obama it must be because people like me are just lockstep lackeys.

Well other Obama supporters are telling you you're a lockstep lackey, so there's that.

Also, what are you even taking about?
 
2014-03-09 09:37:15 PM  

SpacePirate: whidbey: SpacePirate: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.

Yeah, Obama, Hillary and Co. definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act in 2011. Nor did they expand upon it with the NDAA. It's all those social conservative's fault. Dude..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

You've clearly made your mind up.

You're not going to research some of the reasons why these things happened, you're just going to trust some soundbite that continues to reinforce your weak arguments.

Again, I can't believe we're still discussing this, that somehow Bush didn't totally fark up this country while in office, and that Obama is not the dictator you're looking for to somehow magically undo everything.

You just want cherry picked answers. And this is the 3rd time I've reminded you that you are not willing to find other pieces of the story.

The only possible defense I can think of is that once elected, they realized the depths of how farked up the world might really be and changed their minds. But I doubt that, and I suppose we wouldn't find out if that was the case. But that's not your argument. Your argument amounts to, "Boo, they were intimidated so it didn't really countlol" Even years later after extensions and expansions. You can be a real troll when you want to be. :P


It's not the best argument I've ever heard, I have to say. Like I already said, either nobody gets a pass for voting for Patriot--regardless of their motives at the time, whether to appear patriotic because they were scared or to spy on everyone--or everyone does, for the same reasons. Just like the general public--either you were against war in Iraq at the time, or you were for it; the fact that everyone now has 20/20 hindsight and is all hurt and sad because "But Bush lied to us [pout]!" does not excuse anyone either, in my mind. I had the same information as everyone else. And everyone in Congress was under the same pressure and constraints.

No: If we are all responsible for our actions, then the Congressmembers who voted for Patriot in 2001 are culpable, whether it was from fear of public censure or craven self-preservation or apathy or malice. And the ones who voted against it--don't exist.
 
2014-03-09 09:40:35 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: first you complain that Fark is an echo chamber because your arguments don't get any traction

Or I mocked some people it was a thread where they were telling each other they "weren't liberal enough" and complaining about imaginary Republicans.  One or the other.

and now since you don't have any real criticisms of Obama it must be because people like me are just lockstep lackeys.

Well other Obama supporters are telling you you're a lockstep lackey, so there's that.


No they aren't.

So you're going to add "making up shiat" to your resume here as well?

Also, what are you even taking about?

I'm saying get with it. Blaming me and other Farkers for your inability to make your position come across isn't going to make the cut.
 
2014-03-09 09:53:25 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The only possible defense I can think of is that once elected, they realized the depths of how farked up the world might really be and changed their minds. But I doubt that, and I suppose we wouldn't find out if that was the case. But that's not your argument. Your argument amounts to, "Boo, they were intimidated so it didn't really count lol" Even years later after extensions and expansions. You can be a real troll when you want to be. :P


It's not the best argument I've ever heard, I have to say.


Seeing as how I didn't even make that argument, agreed.

Like I already said, either nobody gets a pass for voting for Patriot--regardless of their motives at the time, whether to appear patriotic because they were scared or to spy on everyone--or everyone does, for the same reasons. Just like the general public--either you were against war in Iraq at the time, or you were for it; the fact that everyone now has 20/20 hindsight and is all hurt and sad because "But Bush lied to us [pout]!" does not excuse anyone either, in my mind. I had the same information as everyone else. And everyone in Congress was under the same pressure and constraints.

No: If we are all responsible for our actions, then the Congressmembers who voted for Patriot in 2001 are culpable, whether it was from fear of public censure or craven self-preservation or apathy or malice. And the ones who voted against it--don't exist.

Like I already said, either nobody gets a pass for voting for Patriot--regardless of their motives at the time, whether to appear patriotic because they were scared or to spy on everyone--or everyone does, for the same reasons. Just like the general public--either you were against war in Iraq at the time, or you were for it; the fact that everyone now has 20/20 hindsight and is all hurt and sad because "But Bush lied to us [pout]!" does not excuse anyone either, in my mind. I had the same information as everyone else. And everyone in Congress was under the same pressure and constraints.

Again, there's very black and white of you. It ignores the intimidation the Bush administration forced onto Congress, and it also ignores the very real international conflict we were saddled with post-Bush.

And while you might think it best to be cavalier and pull out the rug while we're fighting an enemy, I'm not sure if I share that. Granted, we need to become a more diplomatic nation and seek peaceful solutions.
 
2014-03-09 09:53:35 PM  

whidbey: dave2198: fusillade762: It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.

Really? You're going to need a citation on the statement that the public is divided on:

abortion
capital punishment
health care reform
military spending
gay marriage

Do I need to go on?

You really think the public is in agreement on any of those?

I'm a liberal as they come, but come on... you can't ignore reality. Not everybody agrees with you.

This. If the public had any sense of unity, they would have told the social conservatives in Congress to fark off by now. And given that the House and Senate are going to see seats won by the Republicans,

they haven't.


National polls show that 7 of 10 people want to raise the minimum wage. Similar numbers want term limits for Congress, support building the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada and back using government money to make preschool available to every child.

My main problem was with the "nearly every" part.
 
2014-03-09 10:03:35 PM  

Gyrfalcon: SpacePirate: whidbey: SpacePirate: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: And I'll go as far to say that PATRIOT hasn't been repealed now because of the social conservatives.

Yeah, Obama, Hillary and Co. definitely didn't extend the Patriot Act in 2011. Nor did they expand upon it with the NDAA. It's all those social conservative's fault. Dude..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8

You've clearly made your mind up.

You're not going to research some of the reasons why these things happened, you're just going to trust some soundbite that continues to reinforce your weak arguments.

Again, I can't believe we're still discussing this, that somehow Bush didn't totally fark up this country while in office, and that Obama is not the dictator you're looking for to somehow magically undo everything.

You just want cherry picked answers. And this is the 3rd time I've reminded you that you are not willing to find other pieces of the story.

The only possible defense I can think of is that once elected, they realized the depths of how farked up the world might really be and changed their minds. But I doubt that, and I suppose we wouldn't find out if that was the case. But that's not your argument. Your argument amounts to, "Boo, they were intimidated so it didn't really countlol" Even years later after extensions and expansions. You can be a real troll when you want to be. :P

It's not the best argument I've ever heard, I have to say. Like I already said, either nobody gets a pass for voting for Patriot--regardless of their motives at the time, whether to appear patriotic because they were scared or to spy on everyone--or everyone does, for the same reasons. Just like the general public--either you were against war in Iraq at the time, or you were for it; the fact that everyone now has 20/20 hindsight and is all hurt and sad because "But Bush lied to us [pout]!" does not excuse anyone either, in my mind. I had the same information as everyone else. And everyone in Congress was under the same pressure and constraints.

No: If we are all responsible for our actions, then the Congressmembers who voted for Patriot in 2001 are culpable, whether it was from fear of public censure or craven self-preservation or apathy or malice. And the ones who voted against it--don't exist.


Heh, I feel like we are having the same snippet of conversation as the other day.

Personal responsibility and the motives to actions should be inseparable.

That doesn't mean I give anyone a pass on the patriot act, but I certainly don't lump them all together as equals.

That is unfortunately the problem with representative democracy. When, if ever, is it worth voting the wrong way to keep your seat and live to fight another day?

I always wonder how well I could hold my ethics together if I were a politician. Too well and I couldn't my job.
 
2014-03-09 10:04:14 PM  
Couldn't keep my job.
 
2014-03-09 10:09:52 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Great_Milenko: enry: StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.

And replace it with....?

Poor people dying.  Just like god intended.

Great_Milenko: enry: StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.

And replace it with....?

Poor people dying.  Just like god intended.

They will replace it with tax cuts for the rich and elimination of food stamps. Couple that with closing woman's clinics and the "healthcare" plan is complete.


School lunch programs?  Fark those little shiats.  Let them sweep the hallways for their meals.  Empty garbage cans.  Gotta show 'em they're dirt.
 
2014-03-09 10:12:24 PM  
Back to the actual topic, NPR is full of shiat and they are making the same kind of tiresome "both sides are bad/the same/destroying America" kind of crap you'd expect here.

Never mind the total incongruity of both parties' actions and proposals over the past 5 years, they HAVE to be the same.

And since NPR said so, liberals also say so now.

amirite?
 
2014-03-09 10:12:44 PM  

whidbey: No they aren't.


I believe  Gyrfalcon supports Obama, and it appears that he is.

I'm saying get with it. Blaming me and other Farkers for your inability to make your position come across isn't going to make the cut.

I can't help your delusions.

Smackledorfer: That is unfortunately the problem with representative democracy. When, if ever, is it worth voting the wrong way to keep your seat and live to fight another day?


Never.  Of course people with ethics can't get elected in the first place, so no worries about getting re-elected.
 
2014-03-09 10:14:58 PM  
Do you remember that movie The Box?  In the movie, when the box was opened, there was a button, and if you pressed that button, someone in the world will die randomly and you receive $1 million.

In my fantasy world, when you press the button a Republican legislator dies randomly.  I don't even want the money.  Just give me that box that does that.
 
2014-03-09 10:19:44 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: No they aren't.

I believe  Gyrfalcon supports Obama, and it appears that he is.


Actually, she still supports Obama. And we can disagree about things. It's allowed here.

I'm saying get with it. Blaming me and other Farkers for your inability to make your position come across isn't going to make the cut.

I can't help your delusions.

Smackledorfer: That is unfortunately the problem with representative democracy. When, if ever, is it worth voting the wrong way to keep your seat and live to fight another day?

Never.  Of course people with ethics can't get elected in the first place, so no worries about getting re-elected.

BMFPitt: whidbey: No they aren't.

I believe  Gyrfalcon supports Obama, and it appears that he is.

I'm saying get with it. Blaming me and other Farkers for your inability to make your position come across isn't going to make the cut.

I can't help your delusions.


I'm not the one deluded here. You think you just can just waltz into a forum, have your unworkable opinions validated, and then blame everyone else when it was your own shortcomings that got you where you were.

That is delusion. I await your next snarky projection.
 
2014-03-09 10:20:36 PM  
God I'm experiencing Fark Quoting Hell Syndrome.
 
2014-03-09 10:21:58 PM  

fusillade762: This. If the public had any sense of unity, they would have told the social conservatives in Congress to fark off by now. And given that the House and Senate are going to see seats won by the Republicans,

they haven't.


National polls show that 7 of 10 people want to raise the minimum wage. Similar numbers want term limits for Congress, support building the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada and back using government money to make preschool available to every child.

My main problem was with the "nearly every" part.


Informal polls are one thing.

Election results are quite another. This country is deeply divided. Deal with it. It's not just a media invention.
 
2014-03-09 10:27:32 PM  
ABBAB, or "Always Be Berating and Belittling".
 
2014-03-09 10:27:57 PM  

Smackledorfer: BMFPitt: Even NPR is being accused of being Republican, now?

They do bend over backwards to maintain an appearance of balance on many issues.

They also seem to have gotten worse over the last couple years.

I wouldn't call that Republican though.


I agree. I've noticed it too.  It isn't a bias, they're just whimps.

The Republican (or Democrat) could say something so factually wrong and devoid of any facts and yet the NPR host will just smile and agree without even bothering to challenge it. They don't challenge anything anyone says.
 
2014-03-09 10:29:01 PM  

Space Station Wagon: ABBAB, or "Always Be Berating and Belittling".


I was a big fan of their music.
 
2014-03-09 10:30:58 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Smackledorfer: BMFPitt: Even NPR is being accused of being Republican, now?

They do bend over backwards to maintain an appearance of balance on many issues.

They also seem to have gotten worse over the last couple years.

I wouldn't call that Republican though.

I agree. I've noticed it too.  It isn't a bias, they're just whimps.

The Republican (or Democrat) could say something so factually wrong and devoid of any facts and yet the NPR host will just smile and agree without even bothering to challenge it. They don't challenge anything anyone says.


*shrugs*

It's yuppie radio. Leans on the cute and clever, stays away from the critical thinking. Because it's supposed to make you feel good when you're driving home from your 90 hour a week job, not remind you how bad things are.
 
2014-03-09 10:38:09 PM  

whidbey: Mrtraveler01: Smackledorfer: BMFPitt: Even NPR is being accused of being Republican, now?

They do bend over backwards to maintain an appearance of balance on many issues.

They also seem to have gotten worse over the last couple years.

I wouldn't call that Republican though.

I agree. I've noticed it too.  It isn't a bias, they're just whimps.

The Republican (or Democrat) could say something so factually wrong and devoid of any facts and yet the NPR host will just smile and agree without even bothering to challenge it. They don't challenge anything anyone says.

*shrugs*

It's yuppie radio. Leans on the cute and clever, stays away from the critical thinking. Because it's supposed to make you feel good when you're driving home from your 90 hour a week job, not remind you how bad things are.


Maybe, but Whidbey would settle for nothing short of a liberal rush limbaugh I imagine :)
 
2014-03-09 10:44:05 PM  

whidbey: Even I went along with what Bush was saying, and I farked hated him.


You just admitted that you're a blithering idiot.
 
2014-03-09 10:44:10 PM  

fusillade762: whidbey: dave2198: fusillade762: It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.

Really? You're going to need a citation on the statement that the public is divided on:

abortion
capital punishment
health care reform
military spending
gay marriage

Do I need to go on?

You really think the public is in agreement on any of those?

I'm a liberal as they come, but come on... you can't ignore reality. Not everybody agrees with you.

This. If the public had any sense of unity, they would have told the social conservatives in Congress to fark off by now. And given that the House and Senate are going to see seats won by the Republicans,

they haven't.

National polls show that 7 of 10 people want to raise the minimum wage. Similar numbers want term limits for Congress, support building the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada and back using government money to make preschool available to every child.

My main problem was with the "nearly every" part.


So in other words, none of the truly divisive issues which get people elected.
 
2014-03-09 10:44:36 PM  

whidbey: I'm saying get with it. Blaming me and other Farkers for your inability to make your position come across isn't going to make the cut.
...
I'm not the one deluded here. You think you just can just waltz into a forum, have your unworkable opinions validated, and then blame everyone else when it was your own shortcomings that got you where you were.


The imaginary version of me in your head sounds like a dick.

whidbey: God I'm experiencing Fark Quoting Hell Syndrome.


At least we can agree to hate the new quote format.
 
2014-03-09 10:44:46 PM  

Smackledorfer: Maybe, but Whidbey would settle for nothing short of a liberal rush limbaugh I imagine :)


When I did listen to talk radio, I liked Phil Hartmann, Rachel Maddow and Democracy Now!
 
2014-03-09 10:46:08 PM  

whidbey: BMFPitt: whidbey: No they aren't.

I believe Gyrfalcon supports Obama, and it appears that he is.

Actually, she still supports Obama. And we can disagree about things. It's allowed here.

I'm saying get with it. Blaming me and other Farkers for your inability to make your position come across isn't going to make the cut.

I can't help your delusions.


We (me & whidbey) often disagree about details. That's why we come here. I would never think my puerile arguments would change his mind, nor his mine. But at least I know he has the courage of his convictions. More than I can say about at least half the ITGs on Fark.
 
2014-03-09 10:46:16 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: You just admitted that you're a blithering idiot.


And a Bush-loving right-wing nutjob who should move to Somalia.

// Am I doing it right?
 
2014-03-09 10:47:24 PM  
but the health care law certainly hasn't gained popularity since its passage.

with Fox and every single republican hoping for reelection banging on it are you surprised NPR? stupid article is stupid.
 
2014-03-09 10:49:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: We (me & whidbey) often disagree about details. That's why we come here. I would never think my puerile arguments would change his mind, nor his mine. But at least I know he has the courage of his convictions. More than I can say about at least half the ITGs on Fark.


So can we have an official ruling on whether you, as a fellow Obama supporter, were saying he was being a bit of a lockstep lackey?
 
2014-03-09 10:49:23 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: I'm saying get with it. Blaming me and other Farkers for your inability to make your position come across isn't going to make the cut.
...
I'm not the one deluded here. You think you just can just waltz into a forum, have your unworkable opinions validated, and then blame everyone else when it was your own shortcomings that got you where you were.


The imaginary version of me in your head sounds like a dick.


Well maybe when you call Fark a "liberal echo chamber" it's kind of hard to get off the list.

I dunno. What good things DO you support?
 
2014-03-09 10:50:16 PM  

BMFPitt: // Am I doing it right?


You?  Never.
 
2014-03-09 10:54:50 PM  
NPR/PBS can't report anything that would displease the Koch brothers, lest they want their funding cut off.
 
2014-03-09 11:01:01 PM  

dave2198: fusillade762: whidbey: dave2198: fusillade762: It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.

Really? You're going to need a citation on the statement that the public is divided on:

abortion
capital punishment
health care reform
military spending
gay marriage

Do I need to go on?

You really think the public is in agreement on any of those?

I'm a liberal as they come, but come on... you can't ignore reality. Not everybody agrees with you.

This. If the public had any sense of unity, they would have told the social conservatives in Congress to fark off by now. And given that the House and Senate are going to see seats won by the Republicans,

they haven't.

National polls show that 7 of 10 people want to raise the minimum wage. Similar numbers want term limits for Congress, support building the Keystone XL pipeline to bring oil from Canada and back using government money to make preschool available to every child.

My main problem was with the "nearly every" part.

So in other words, none of the truly divisive issues which get people elected.


Plus he was saying what a great thing Keystone was.
 
2014-03-09 11:14:27 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Space Station Wagon: ABBAB, or "Always Be Berating and Belittling".

I was a big fan of their music.


With their hit song, "Dancing Queen, Who Does That biatch Think She Is".
 
2014-03-09 11:19:24 PM  

BMFPitt: Gyrfalcon: We (me & whidbey) often disagree about details. That's why we come here. I would never think my puerile arguments would change his mind, nor his mine. But at least I know he has the courage of his convictions. More than I can say about at least half the ITGs on Fark.

So can we have an official ruling on whether you, as a fellow Obama supporter, were saying he was being a bit of a lockstep lackey?


I think I said there was no excuse for anyone who voted for the Patriot act and they all deserved censure for their various craven and opportunistic reasons. Obama included. They were more than "lockstep lackeys", they were cowards, and it was unconscionable and wrong.
 
2014-03-09 11:22:01 PM  
Come armed this time, Republicans.

We double dog dare you.
 
2014-03-09 11:23:42 PM  

Gyrfalcon: BMFPitt: Gyrfalcon: We (me & whidbey) often disagree about details. That's why we come here. I would never think my puerile arguments would change his mind, nor his mine. But at least I know he has the courage of his convictions. More than I can say about at least half the ITGs on Fark.

So can we have an official ruling on whether you, as a fellow Obama supporter, were saying he was being a bit of a lockstep lackey?

I think I said there was no excuse for anyone who voted for the Patriot act and they all deserved censure for their various craven and opportunistic reasons. Obama included. They were more than "lockstep lackeys", they were cowards, and it was unconscionable and wrong.


I guess I don't understand how they were "cowards" if the threats seemed real enough at the time?

Also, do you really think we could have just pulled the plug on everything given that Bush's policies really did create enemies that we didn't have before?
 
2014-03-09 11:37:55 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: whidbey: Even I went along with what Bush was saying, and I farked hated him.

You just admitted that you're a blithering idiot.


I know, right? Yumpin' Yoises!

I hate Progressivism as deeply as anyone can hate something, so naturally the binary thinkers of this sorry world assume I loved Bush.

I can't think of a single thing that Bush said or did that I went along with. Certainly none of the big stuff -- the foreign wars, Gitmo, Patriot Act, NCLB, Medicare D, TARP. Not one.

Whidbey has never contributed any insight or noteworthy comment into any thread I've ever read. 99% of the time, it's bigot this and bigot that, pretending to be the arbiter of other people's contributions, and variations on the word "derp," which he must have copied from someone funnier than him. And now he admits to supporting George W. Bush at some point.

I didn't know someone's credibility could drop below zero. Until now.
 
2014-03-09 11:50:34 PM  

whidbey: Plus he was saying what a great thing Keystone was.


Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that.
 
2014-03-09 11:53:05 PM  

fusillade762: whidbey: Plus he was saying what a great thing Keystone was.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that.


Whatever. So you don't admit you could be wrong, you're just going to admonish me for the snark.

OK. Well, then I'm going to go out on a limb and question your source. No way that many people are that stupid.
 
2014-03-10 12:22:17 AM  

whidbey: fusillade762: whidbey: Plus he was saying what a great thing Keystone was.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. Please don't do that.

Whatever. So you don't admit you could be wrong, you're just going to admonish me for the snark.

OK. Well, then I'm going to go out on a limb and question your source. No way that many people are that stupid.


www.washingtonpost.com

www.people-press.org

content.gallup.com

Please remember I'm just the messenger here. I don't personally think the pipeline is a good idea.
 
2014-03-10 12:32:13 AM  

fusillade762: Please remember I'm just the messenger here. I don't personally think the pipeline is a good idea.


All right, well, sorry for harshing you out, I guess I learned something here today:

Keystone XL Attracts Majority Support, Except Among Liberals

lulz
 
2014-03-10 12:45:09 AM  

whidbey: Gyrfalcon: BMFPitt: Gyrfalcon: We (me & whidbey) often disagree about details. That's why we come here. I would never think my puerile arguments would change his mind, nor his mine. But at least I know he has the courage of his convictions. More than I can say about at least half the ITGs on Fark.

So can we have an official ruling on whether you, as a fellow Obama supporter, were saying he was being a bit of a lockstep lackey?

I think I said there was no excuse for anyone who voted for the Patriot act and they all deserved censure for their various craven and opportunistic reasons. Obama included. They were more than "lockstep lackeys", they were cowards, and it was unconscionable and wrong.

I guess I don't understand how they were "cowards" if the threats seemed real enough at the time?

Also, do you really think we could have just pulled the plug on everything given that Bush's policies really did create enemies that we didn't have before?


Because the threats weren't real. That is, the war threats weren't real. The alleged WMDs were not real--this was known. Saddam's ties to 9/11 were not real--this was known. The so-called nuclear enrichment program was not real--this was known. The sanctions were working--this was known. Anyone with half a brain knew these things--they were in the 9/11 Commission Report, they had been in news reports, they were on the Internet. If you wanted to find more, it was available.

As to the "threat" of being called "unpatriotic"--that's b/s, as far as I'm concerned. This is still America. A charge of treason is hard to prove, and was harder still before we actually went to Iraq. So you didn't vote for a piece of legislation and the President called you unpatriotic--so what. It was 2001, the next election cycle wasn't coming up until next year, and people would have forgotten it by then. Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's not something I'm prepared to allow people to claim.

For your last question: We had justification for going into Afghanistan, and the world did not hate us quite as actively then. We didn't have all those enemies until we decided to go into Iraq with the reasons we used; so yes, absolutely we could have pulled the plug, as you say, in 2003, and gone back to the carrot instead of the stick. It was bullying everyone into supporting us in Iraq and pulling the Lone Cowboy act that alienated all our allies; and Obama has done a reasonably good job of reversing the trend in just a few short years even WITH our troops in Afghanistan (and Iraq until recently) by just not going in everywhere with fists flying.

I understand where you're coming from; and why you would think it was an insurmountable issue--but what's good for the goose is good for the gander imo. If Republicans were wrong to vote for the Patriot Act because patriotism, then Democrats were wrong to vote for it because fear. YMMV, and that's fine. We've got the damn thing now, and the better argument is How do we get rid of it?
 
2014-03-10 01:24:24 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's not something I'm prepared to allow people to claim.


Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.
 
2014-03-10 01:31:56 AM  

s2s2s2: Gyrfalcon: Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's not something I'm prepared to allow people to claim.

Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.


Hurr wut
 
2014-03-10 01:36:21 AM  
While engaged in two wars and faced with the worst economic crisis since the great depression the US Congress decides to DO NOTHING and Alan Greenblatt suggests this might be a good thing.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFfUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
 
2014-03-10 02:39:39 AM  

whidbey: Hurr wut


Since I know you love research.

I still made it easy on you. Obama did go on TV and pinky swear to never ever use it.
Makes one wonder why they fought so hard to keep it, though, eh?
 
2014-03-10 03:00:49 AM  

s2s2s2: Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.


s2s2s2: Since I know you love research.

I still made it easy on you. Obama did go on TV and pinky swear to never ever use it.
Makes one wonder why they fought so hard to keep it, though, eh?


I know this is hard, but try to keep up here....

the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, was wrote by congress. see that is their job. The president then enforces those laws. that is the executivebranches job. One way the executive does that is byrepresenting the government in a court of law should someone file suit against a law passed by congress.

showing up in court when a suit is filed, is not "the Obama administration made sure they were included". Congress  "made sure they were included": since they wrote it. perhaps those Republicans who wanted those provisions removed, should have spoke up a little bit and voted against it since, you know, they actually had the power to change what was in the bill.

now run along and go play Flappy Bird on your tablet or something if none of the other kids want to play with you
 
2014-03-10 03:04:44 AM  

s2s2s2: whidbey: Hurr wut

Since I know you love research.

I still made it easy on you. Obama did go on TV and pinky swear to never ever use it.
Makes one wonder why they fought so hard to keep it, though, eh?


No mention of Republicans opposing it.

Like I need any more proof you aren't a total poo-flinger. Say something snarky back. I dare you.
 
2014-03-10 03:05:59 AM  

log_jammin: now run along and go play Flappy Bird on your tablet or something if none of the other kids want to play with you


Aw, look at that. It isn't just me who's sick of your crap, s2.
 
2014-03-10 03:17:16 AM  

StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.


More likely we'll work towards single-payer with the new Senate supermajority and the House majority.

But I like your delusions of relevance, anyway.
 
2014-03-10 03:21:16 AM  

SpacePirate: BSABSVR?

No, I don't quite like the sound of that one.

BSABSVD?

Eh, I went with that one for awhile, but no.

BSABSVC?

Now we're talking.
[img.fark.net image 420x420]


Yeah, like the Republicans and Democrats would ever let a third party speak.

/Plus they're already so crazy they're immune to Cthulhu's mind-fark.
 
2014-03-10 04:24:52 AM  

whidbey: s2s2s2: Gyrfalcon: Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's not something I'm prepared to allow people to claim.

Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.

Hurr wut


I know, sometimes it's like Alice going ass over teakettle down the rabbit hole around here.
 
2014-03-10 06:03:09 AM  

Gyrfalcon: whidbey: s2s2s2: Gyrfalcon: Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's not something I'm prepared to allow people to claim.

Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.

Hurr wut

I know, sometimes it's like Alice going ass over teakettle down the rabbit hole around here.


Ever since CPAC started it's been a derpstorm on facebook of hilarious proportions.  My favorite is they have doubled down on "people who call out my bigotry for being against gay marriage are the real bigots."

That and stupid separation of powers arguments that totally ignores the fact that we fought a rather large civil war to resolve.
 
2014-03-10 06:30:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: whidbey: Gyrfalcon: BMFPitt: Gyrfalcon: We (me & whidbey) often disagree about details. That's why we come here. I would never think my puerile arguments would change his mind, nor his mine. But at least I know he has the courage of his convictions. More than I can say about at least half the ITGs on Fark.

So can we have an official ruling on whether you, as a fellow Obama supporter, were saying he was being a bit of a lockstep lackey?

I think I said there was no excuse for anyone who voted for the Patriot act and they all deserved censure for their various craven and opportunistic reasons. Obama included. They were more than "lockstep lackeys", they were cowards, and it was unconscionable and wrong.

I guess I don't understand how they were "cowards" if the threats seemed real enough at the time?

Also, do you really think we could have just pulled the plug on everything given that Bush's policies really did create enemies that we didn't have before?

Because the threats weren't real. That is, the war threats weren't real. The alleged WMDs were not real--this was known. Saddam's ties to 9/11 were not real--this was known. The so-called nuclear enrichment program was not real--this was known. The sanctions were working--this was known. Anyone with half a brain knew these things--they were in the 9/11 Commission Report, they had been in news reports, they were on the Internet. If you wanted to find more, it was available.

As to the "threat" of being called "unpatriotic"--that's b/s, as far as I'm concerned. This is still America. A charge of treason is hard to prove, and was harder still before we actually went to Iraq. So you didn't vote for a piece of legislation and the President called you unpatriotic--so what. It was 2001, the next election cycle wasn't coming up until next year, and people would have forgotten it by then. Regardless of the dread powers people like to impute to the President, wholesale imprisonment and execution aren't among them. So that's n ...



This.

I am tired of hearing (usually from conservatives trying to defend the Bush administration without defending it), "oh, well, you know,  at the time..."

No. It is utter bullshiat. Perhaps it would sound persuasive to a newly-minted voter, but I can actually remember back that far. "The threats seemed real enough at the time" my ass. These politicians failed to do their jobs adequately, to put it in the mildest possible terms. They knew better, or should have. They could have said no, and didn't. They deserve every bit of blame they get for the ensuing clusterfark.

/this most certainly does NOT mean bsabsvr
 
2014-03-10 07:44:02 AM  

whidbey: Well maybe when you call Fark a "liberal echo chamber" it's kind of hard to get off the list.


When I see a bunch of people in a thread telling each other that nobody is ideologically pure enough for them, and complaining about imaginary bias, I'm going to call it an echo chamber.  Deal with it.

I dunno. What good things DO you support?

Here's a really quick list of good things that you would agree with if your brain weren't filtering them out and replacing them with imaginary derp:
 - Universal healthcare.
 - Marriage equality
 - Massively reduced military

 I would also say the 4th Amendment if you didn't seem so strongly against it.

 whidbey: I guess I don't understand how they were "cowards" if the threats seemed real enough at the time?

"Threats" as in terrorism, or as in Bush saying mean things about them?

Also, do you really think we could have just pulled the plug on everything given that Bush's policies really did create enemies that we didn't have before?

We're talking about never enacting those policies which you supported.
 
2014-03-10 08:17:21 AM  
NPR has been pretty bad in recent years, especially domestic political news.

'Here to talk about this we have an expert, Dr. Educated.  And for another viewpoint, we have Mr. Talkingpoints from the CATO Institute.'
 
2014-03-10 08:18:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: I understand where you're coming from; and why you would think it was an insurmountable issue--but what's good for the goose is good for the gander imo. If Republicans were wrong to vote for the Patriot Act because patriotism, then Democrats were wrong to vote for it because fear. YMMV, and that's fine. We've got the damn thing now, and the better argument is How do we get rid of it?


Easy, really.

Become a single issue voter, and work with anyone and anyone to prevail on that issue.

My single issue is the removal of the 535 member limit on Congress, because I think a vast majority of what ails this country could be repaired if we got rid of that, and returned to the Constitutionally mandated 1 Representative per 20,000 citizens.

Now, of course, every sitting member of Congress will oppose removing this limit, for the same reason they put it in place- fear of their own person power diminishing, but it needs to be done.  Since the limit was put in place in 1911, every 10 years the census shows the increase in population, and the Congressional districts get redrawn, and each "Representative" in Congress represents a larger group of citizens, so the individual citizens matter less and less.

If we can get back to reasonably sized Congressional districts, communities can actually elect one of their own, to represent them, and to be answerable to them.  Let the members of Congress be beholden to their constituents, not their donors.

By reapportioning representation back to the citizens, as it should be, this can help break the two-party stranglehold on the system, and hopefully lead to a more parlimentary style system where multiple parties form coalitions to accomplish common goals.  We may even be able to successfully overhaul the electoral system, (Publicly Funded Elections. plurality/run-off voting please), but at the very least, it would demolish the current gerrymandering problems, and we'd likely never again see a situation like the one with background checks where 85% of the US supports it but it can't get passed because < 50% of congressional donors do.
 
2014-03-10 08:36:22 AM  

Gyrfalcon: How do we get rid of it?


Hang those that support it.

It's not that hard.
 
2014-03-10 08:58:37 AM  

log_jammin: I know this is hard, but try to keep up here....


Yeah, you seem lost.

"A federal court in New York has issued a permanent injunction blocking the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA but the injunction was stayed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals pending appeal by the Obama Administration."

whidbey: No mention of Republicans opposing it.


To be fair, they were probably just confused because Obama seemed to be for it. Here's a Mother Jones piece on it.

I guess you hate research not done by others.
 
2014-03-10 08:59:52 AM  

whidbey: log_jammin: now run along and go play Flappy Bird on your tablet or something if none of the other kids want to play with you

Aw, look at that. It isn't just me who's sick of your crap, s2.


Just a couple kids who have nothing to back up their bluster.
 
2014-03-10 09:04:38 AM  

log_jammin: showing up in court when a suit is filed, is not "the Obama administration made sure they were included".


When they are lawyers for "The Obama Administration" yes, it does. It's funny how that works, isn't it?
 
2014-03-10 09:10:36 AM  
From the Mother Jones piece I cited earlier:
Last year, during consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress came close to authorizing the indefinite detention of American citizens captured on US soil who were suspected of terrorism. Ultimately, the House, the Senate, and the White House agreed on a compromise that would let federal courts decide whether such detentions were constitutional. That is, when confronted with the knotty question of whether the US government can detain its own citizens within the nation's borders without charging them with a crime, Congress decided not to decide. Still, activists on the left and right remain concerned, because although President Barack Obama promised not to use that power, the law does not explicitly prevent him from doing so. In the months since Obama signed the bill ... The revolt against the NDAA has brought together organizations and activists that disagree on almost every other issue-tea party activists, the states' rights Tenth Amendment Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Occupy Wall Street protesters....In Virginia, Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell recently signed a bill that could prohibit state authorities from "knowingly" aiding in the military detention of a US citizen.

The Arizona Legislature passed a bill making it a misdemeanor for state officials to help the feds detain US citizens under the NDAA
 
2014-03-10 09:24:49 AM  

Alphax: NPR has been pretty bad in recent years, especially domestic political news.

'Here to talk about this we have an expert, Dr. Educated.  And for another viewpoint, we have Mr. Talkingpoints from the CATO Institute.'


Listening to NPR has been absolute torture enhanced interrogation tactics for some time now. They neutered themselves for the Bush cabal, and the GOP thanks them by cutting their funding. Hope you learned a lesson about negotiating with terrorists, NPR, but I doubt you have.
 
2014-03-10 09:55:28 AM  

StanTheMan: The only thing better than gridlock would be if Congress started actually repealing its farkups.

Hopefully, they'll start with Obamacare with the new Republican Senate in Jan 2015.


Now that millions have enrolled under the ACA repealing it would take away benefits from voters and make them very angry. The  Republicans would have to be grotesquely stupid to repeal it outright.  (so, I guess it could happen).

I double dog dare em.
 
2014-03-10 10:00:47 AM  

Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.


So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.
 
2014-03-10 10:10:14 AM  

s2s2s2: pending appeal by the Obama Administration."


s2s2s2: When they are lawyers for "The Obama Administration" yes, it does. It's funny how that works, isn't it?


the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Like I said, I know this is hard, but the wording of articles and wiki entries doesn't change how our government works.

s2s2s2: Just a couple kids who have nothing to back up their bluster.


projection.jpg
 
2014-03-10 10:24:35 AM  

SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.


Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.
 
2014-03-10 10:25:20 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Gyrfalcon: I understand where you're coming from; and why you would think it was an insurmountable issue--but what's good for the goose is good for the gander imo. If Republicans were wrong to vote for the Patriot Act because patriotism, then Democrats were wrong to vote for it because fear. YMMV, and that's fine. We've got the damn thing now, and the better argument is How do we get rid of it?

Easy, really.

Become a single issue voter, and work with anyone and anyone to prevail on that issue.

My single issue is the removal of the 535 member limit on Congress, because I think a vast majority of what ails this country could be repaired if we got rid of that, and returned to the Constitutionally mandated 1 Representative per 20,000 citizens.

Now, of course, every sitting member of Congress will oppose removing this limit, for the same reason they put it in place- fear of their own person power diminishing, but it needs to be done.  Since the limit was put in place in 1911, every 10 years the census shows the increase in population, and the Congressional districts get redrawn, and each "Representative" in Congress represents a larger group of citizens, so the individual citizens matter less and less.

If we can get back to reasonably sized Congressional districts, communities can actually elect one of their own, to represent them, and to be answerable to them.  Let the members of Congress be beholden to their constituents, not their donors.

By reapportioning representation back to the citizens, as it should be, this can help break the two-party stranglehold on the system, and hopefully lead to a more parlimentary style system where multiple parties form coalitions to accomplish common goals.  We may even be able to successfully overhaul the electoral system, (Publicly Funded Elections. plurality/run-off voting please), but at the very least, it would demolish the current gerrymandering problems, and we'd likely never again see a situation like the one with backgro ...


I'm not sure I'd go with the strict 30K per rep -- 10k+ number of reps would be a bit unwieldy -- but I would like to see it get a bit more proportional.
 
2014-03-10 10:32:48 AM  

log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".


Keep saying it, it might become true, someday.
 
2014-03-10 10:33:39 AM  

log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".


Who is that guy who is administering the United States government these days?
 
2014-03-10 10:35:32 AM  

BMFPitt: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Who is that guy who is administering the United States government these days?


Valerie Jarrett.
 
2014-03-10 10:35:32 AM  

s2s2s2: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Keep saying it, it might become true, someday.


Keep saying "nu-uh!", it might become true, someday.
 
2014-03-10 10:36:16 AM  
Jeez whidbey
 
2014-03-10 10:37:44 AM  

BMFPitt: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Who is that guy who is administering the United States government these days?


And we have another one who needs a civics class.
 
2014-03-10 10:44:07 AM  

log_jammin: And we have another one who needs a civics class.


Here, let me provide it to you.
 
2014-03-10 10:47:29 AM  

log_jammin: s2s2s2: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Keep saying it, it might become true, someday.

Keep saying "nu-uh!", it might become true, someday.


Nearly everything I see on the topic refers to the government's lawyers as "Obama Administration lawyers". Now, I said "the Obama Admin" made sure it stayed in, which is the same "Obama Administration" as cited by the phrase "Obama Administration lawyers".

I get that you are trying to put some distance between Obama, personally, and the expansion of the NDAA, but that doesn't diminish the veracity of my original statement.
 
2014-03-10 10:53:50 AM  

BMFPitt: log_jammin: And we have another one who needs a civics class.

Here, let me provide it to you.


*yawn*

Where does that say Obama added provisions into the law and not congress?

Oh. Nowhere. Thanks for playing.
 
2014-03-10 10:57:51 AM  

log_jammin: Where does that say Obama added provisions into the law and not congress?

Oh. Nowhere. Thanks for playing.


Where does anyone say anything remotely like that?
 
2014-03-10 11:00:09 AM  

s2s2s2: log_jammin: s2s2s2: log_jammin: the lawyers are "for" the united states government. That is who they represent. NOT "The Obama Administration".

Keep saying it, it might become true, someday.

Keep saying "nu-uh!", it might become true, someday.

Nearly everything I see on the topic refers to the government's lawyers as "Obama Administration lawyers". Now, I said "the Obama Admin" made sure it stayed in, which is the same "Obama Administration" as cited by the phrase "Obama Administration lawyers".

I get that you are trying to put some distance between Obama, personally, and the expansion of the NDAA, but that doesn't diminish the veracity of my original statement.


1. They are lawyers appointed by the obama admin, not lawyers that represent the obama admin.

2. You didn't say the obama admin "made sure they stayed in". You said the obama admin "made sure they were included" and how even GOP law makers didn't want them included. After that I told you who makes the laws. Hint: its not Obama. Or "obama administration lawyers".

Now...I'm done with your dishonest, goal post moving "argument". Have a nice day.
 
2014-03-10 11:00:29 AM  
the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

Cool assertion, bro
 
2014-03-10 11:01:04 AM  

SoupGuru: I go to doctors that don't practice medicine.


So you have a holistic healer?
 
2014-03-10 11:01:44 AM  

BMFPitt: log_jammin: Where does that say Obama added provisions into the law and not congress?

Oh. Nowhere. Thanks for playing.

Where does anyone say anything remotely like that?


You're the one who jumped into the middle of the conversation. Perhaps you could take the time to actually read what I said, who I said it to and why.
 
2014-03-10 12:01:56 PM  

Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.

Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.


Except that it is CLEARLY parody. No reasonable person will see that believe "Gosh, I guess Bill O'Reilly was on TV during slavery and supported the practice". So there is no defamation.
 
2014-03-10 12:17:45 PM  

SpectroBoy: Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.

Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.

Except that it is CLEARLY parody. No reasonable person will see that believe "Gosh, I guess Bill O'Reilly was on TV during slavery and supported the practice". So there is no defamation.


You sound defensive.
 
2014-03-10 12:22:05 PM  

Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.

Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.

Except that it is CLEARLY parody. No reasonable person will see that believe "Gosh, I guess Bill O'Reilly was on TV during slavery and supported the practice". So there is no defamation.

You sound defensive.


You sound like you got nothing.
 
2014-03-10 12:30:29 PM  

fusillade762: It's not just Congress that's split - the public is divided on nearly every issue, too.

I'm gonna need a citation on that, NPR.


You aint new to the politics tab and you need a citation for that claim?
 
2014-03-10 12:45:44 PM  

log_jammin: 1. They are lawyers appointed by the obama admin, not lawyers that represent the obama admin.

2. You didn't say the obama admin "made sure they stayed in". You said the obama admin "made sure they were included" and how even GOP law makers didn't want them included. After that I told you who makes the laws. Hint: its not Obama. Or "obama administration lawyers".

Now...I'm done with your dishonest, goal post moving "argument". Have a nice day.


The court case that would have removed them was fought by "Lawyers with absolutely no connection to the Obama Admin!". I'm sad to see you're going with the "Empty Suit" argument.

I will, but only because you don't mean it. ;)
 
2014-03-10 01:07:27 PM  

log_jammin: Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: SpectroBoy: Phinn: JolobinSmokin: [img.fark.net image 564x353]

If I were affiliated with Fox News or Bill O'Reilly, I'd sue you for that.  And Fark.

So you would be willing to both lose a bunch og money on a lawsuit you would lose AND expose your complete lack of understanding on American law?

Well.... I applaud your honesty at least.

/hint: Parody is protected use.

Fake-Lawyer-Like Typing Detected -- "use" is a copyright issue, not a defamation issue.  In a copyright infringement claim, parody is considered a fair use of someone else's work.

Every legal assertion you post is sloppy.

Also, parody is not a defense to defamation when it misrepresents facts.  The cartoon of O'Reilly purports to disclose the unknown defamatory fact that O'Reilly supports slavery.

Clearly, no one is going to sue.  But if someone used my image to claim that I support slavery, I'd think about it.

Except that it is CLEARLY parody. No reasonable person will see that believe "Gosh, I guess Bill O'Reilly was on TV during slavery and supported the practice". So there is no defamation.

You sound defensive.

You sound like you got nothing.


At least I know the difference between defamation and copyright infringement.
 
2014-03-10 01:20:21 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: Well maybe when you call Fark a "liberal echo chamber" it's kind of hard to get off the list.


When I see a bunch of people in a thread telling each other that nobody is ideologically pure enough for them, and complaining about imaginary bias, I'm going to call it an echo chamber.  Deal with it.


I am dealing with it. People who call Fark an "echo chamber" are unable to come up with real arguments that get traction. How many times do I have to remind you of this? I guess a lot, because you using the term as if it doesn't have consequences.

Here's a really quick list of good things that you would agree with if your brain weren't filtering them out and replacing them with imaginary derp:
- Universal healthcare.
- Marriage equality
- Massively reduced military

I would also say the 4th Amendment if you didn't seem so strongly against it.


I'm not against it. Again, you need to stop worrying about what I'm posting and focus on your own shiat.
 
2014-03-10 01:23:35 PM  

s2s2s2: whidbey: log_jammin: now run along and go play Flappy Bird on your tablet or something if none of the other kids want to play with you

Aw, look at that. It isn't just me who's sick of your crap, s2.

Just a couple kids who have nothing to back up their bluster.


You never backed up your "bluster" in the first place.

The honorable thing to do would be to retract your statements. Both of them.
 
2014-03-10 01:50:32 PM  

whidbey: you need to stop worrying about what I'm posting and focus on your own shiat.


Projection ain't just a river in Egypt.
 
2014-03-10 01:57:33 PM  

whidbey: I am dealing with it. People who call Fark an "echo chamber" are unable to come up with real arguments that get traction. How many times do I have to remind you of this? I guess a lot, because you using the term as if it doesn't have consequences.


You keep trying to convince me that I was wrong in this fantasy you had.  I keep pointing out that you are arguing with a fantasy.

Also, if my arguments don't gain traction in Freeperville, it's only because my positions are wrong?

Again, you need to stop worrying about what I'm posting and focus on your own shiat.

Oh the irony, coming from someone who has spent months trying to convince me that I'm a strawman in his head.
 
2014-03-10 02:05:12 PM  

BMFPitt: whidbey: I am dealing with it. People who call Fark an "echo chamber" are unable to come up with real arguments that get traction. How many times do I have to remind you of this? I guess a lot, because you using the term as if it doesn't have consequences.

You keep trying to convince me that I was wrong in this fantasy you had.  I keep pointing out that you are arguing with a fantasy.

Also, if my arguments don't gain traction in Freeperville, it's only because my positions are wrong?


No, they don't gain traction because it's a dictatorship there. Read their TOS

Again, you need to stop worrying about what I'm posting and focus on your own shiat.

Oh the irony, coming from someone who has spent months trying to convince me that I'm a strawman in his head.


It's actually a lot less than that. I know it seems like an eternity to you.
 
2014-03-10 02:49:40 PM  

whidbey: You never backed up your "bluster" in the first place.


Oh, I see. You are trolling. My bad, troll on. Doesn't bother me, much.
 
2014-03-10 03:04:33 PM  

s2s2s2: whidbey: You never backed up your "bluster" in the first place.

Oh, I see. You are trolling. My bad, troll on. Doesn't bother me, much.


Um, no. You made it look like there were Republicans trying to remove provisions from the NDAA. Ron Paul and some other nutball from the Carolinas doesn't bolster your argument any.

The vast majority of the Republican party favors shiat like NDAA. That's why they came up with it. Once again, you're just talking shiat, and projecting your failures.
 
2014-03-10 03:11:33 PM  

whidbey: You made it look


What you saw has more to do with you, than what I said. I said the Obama Administration made sure unpopular(even with some Republicans), new provisions of the NDAA for 2012 were included. That is a fact.

You can parse it all you want, but my statement is correct.
 
2014-03-10 03:25:40 PM  

s2s2s2: whidbey: You made it look

What you saw has more to do with you, than what I said. I said the Obama Administration made sure unpopular(even with some Republicans), new provisions of the NDAA for 2012 were included. That is a fact.

You can parse it all you want, but my statement is correct.


lol no it's bullshiat, at least three of us called you out, rather than admit you were wrong, you continue to threadshiat.

you want there to be more to it than there is

I said the Obama Administration made sure unpopular(even with some Republicans

haha no dude we've been through this--thread's over now
 
2014-03-10 08:15:52 PM  

s2s2s2: The court case that would have removed them was fought by "Lawyers with absolutely no connection to the Obama Admin!". I'm sad to see you're going with the "Empty Suit" argument.



hmmm...are you deliberately obtuse, or completely dishonesty? I can't tell at this point.


s2s2s2: I said the Obama Administration made sure unpopular(even with some Republicans), new provisions of the NDAA for 2012 were included. That is a fact.


again...no. the republicans who wrote those provisions and attached them to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 made sure they were included. Because, once again, congress writes the laws, not the executive.


shiat...I knew you wasn't exactly a deep thinker, but you're getting tedious.
 
2014-03-10 08:17:51 PM  

Phinn: At least I know the difference between defamation and copyright infringement.


if you think that picture was defamation, then no you don't.
 
2014-03-10 11:01:23 PM  

log_jammin: Phinn: At least I know the difference between defamation and copyright infringement.

if you think that picture was defamation, then no you don't.


Weak.
 
2014-03-10 11:18:22 PM  
True.Sorry that stings so badly for you.
 
2014-03-11 12:21:07 AM  

log_jammin: the republicans who wrote those provisions and attached them to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 made sure they were included. Because, once again, congress writes the laws, not the executive.


I posted a link to the case where this is still an ongoing issue. Lawyers for the Obama administration fought in court to keep the provisions in. I didn't say they did it at Obama's direct command, but they were fighting a case called Hedges v. Obama.

So when I said this:

s2s2s2: Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.


I can see where you misunderstood. Maybe "fought to keep the provisions in" would have been less painful for you to read.
 
2014-03-11 12:23:23 AM  

whidbey: at least three of us called you out


Well, we all know if three people say I'm wrong, I must be!
 
2014-03-11 12:55:49 AM  

s2s2s2: log_jammin: the republicans who wrote those provisions and attached them to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 made sure they were included. Because, once again, congress writes the laws, not the executive.

I posted a link to the case where this is still an ongoing issue. Lawyers for the Obama administration fought in court to keep the provisions in. I didn't say they did it at Obama's direct command, but they were fighting a case called Hedges v. Obama.

So when I said this: s2s2s2: Well, they weren't, until the Obama administration made sure they were included, when there were even Republicans wanting those provisions removed.

I can see where you misunderstood. Maybe "fought to keep the provisions in" would have been less painful for you to read.


like I said...you've gotten tedious, and I'm tired of going round in circles with you.

But on the bright side I know that you're someone who refuses to admit error so I know not to bother with you in the future. so there's that at least.
 
2014-03-11 01:10:59 AM  

Phinn: log_jammin: Phinn: At least I know the difference between defamation and copyright infringement.

if you think that picture was defamation, then no you don't.

Weak.


it ate my link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell
 
2014-03-11 01:43:43 AM  

log_jammin: and I'm tired of going round in circles with you


Get some rest. You need it. You really brought that windmill down.
 
2014-03-11 01:52:29 AM  

s2s2s2: log_jammin: and I'm tired of going round in circles with you

Get some rest. You need it. You really brought that windmill down.


and I'm now down with you.

*plonk*
 
2014-03-11 01:55:25 AM  

log_jammin: and I'm now down with you.

*plonk*


LOL.
 
Displayed 214 of 214 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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