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 36
    More: Stupid, congresses, Lee University, Civil Rights Act of 1964, major piece, Morris Fiorina  
•       •       •

4370 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Mar 2014 at 5:42 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-09 05:57:59 PM
7 votes:
"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 05:53:57 PM
6 votes:

Nice Polite Republicans

2014-03-09 05:56:35 PM
5 votes:
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 06:44:54 PM
4 votes:
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 05:55:23 PM
4 votes:
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 06:09:35 PM
3 votes:
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 10:44:05 PM
2 votes:

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 08:06:35 PM
2 votes:

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 07:52:42 PM
2 votes:
img.fark.net
2014-03-09 07:30:18 PM
2 votes:

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 07:21:47 PM
2 votes:

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 06:55:56 PM
2 votes:
Is Gridlock Good?

No.
2014-03-09 06:34:56 PM
2 votes:

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 06:00:07 PM
2 votes:

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!
2014-03-10 10:00:47 AM
1 votes:

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 06:30:17 AM
1 votes:

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 03:00:49 AM
1 votes:

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 12:45:09 AM
1 votes:

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?
2014-03-09 10:27:57 PM
1 votes:

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 09:37:15 PM
1 votes:

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 08:47:02 PM
1 votes:

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 07:58:15 PM
1 votes:

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 07:49:44 PM
1 votes:

whidbey: Is Gridlock Good?

No.


Well, that was a short article. Now on to the next topic!
2014-03-09 07:46:50 PM
1 votes:

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 07:33:37 PM
1 votes:

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 07:21:48 PM
1 votes:

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 07:16:24 PM
1 votes:

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 07:13:38 PM
1 votes:

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 06:56:50 PM
1 votes:
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 06:55:55 PM
1 votes:

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 06:22:58 PM
1 votes:

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 06:21:37 PM
1 votes:

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 06:19:47 PM
1 votes:
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 06:12:38 PM
1 votes:

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 05:40:01 PM
1 votes:
NPR is still all derped up.  They need to clean out Ken Tomlinson's minions.
2014-03-09 03:28:56 PM
1 votes:
I thought it was frowned on to call out Farkers by name in a headline?
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report