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  
•       •       •

4373 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2014 at 5:42 PM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 214 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report