Four More Years, Four More Years!

Ape

Golden Member
Jul 29, 2000
1,088
0
71

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
But they are majority Democrats! HOW COULD THEY!?! I THOUGHT THEY LOVED US AND WERE GOING TO PROTECT US FROM THE EVIL REPUBLICANS!? Fucking fools. They're all snakes. Republican, Democrat, whatever. Tow the line and you're a moron deserving of it.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
But they are majority Democrats! HOW COULD THEY!?! I THOUGHT THEY LOVED US AND WERE GOING TO PROTECT US FROM THE EVIL REPUBLICANS!? Fucking fools. They're all snakes. Republican, Democrat, whatever. Tow the line and you're a moron deserving of it.

To be fair it was ...

For

R - 42
D - 31

against

R - 4
D - 18

no vote

R - 2
D - 3
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
In other words more Republicans were for this pos than were Democrats. Democrats are less bad on this issue, and pretending there is no difference between the parties is complete BS.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
To be fair it was ...

For

R - 42
D - 31

against

R - 4
D - 18

no vote

R - 2
D - 3

Yeah, so what? I still see 31 D's voted FOR. Those that voted against? Much praise to be had regardless of political party, those that voted for can fuck off and choke on a dick regardless of political party.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Yeah, so what? I still see 31 D's voted FOR. Those that voted against? Much praise to be had regardless of political party, those that voted for can fuck off and choke on a dick regardless of political party.

Simply pointing out that you called them a majority democrats, as if the difference of four votes would have made a difference on this vote. You should go blow a blunt, and I concur that they should all go choke on a dick.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Simply pointing out that you called them a majority democrats, as if the difference of four votes would have made a difference on this vote. You should go blow a blunt, and I concur that they should all go choke on a dick.

Who controls majority of the Senate? If they had voted against it, would it have passed? No, meaning Dems had to have played a crucial hand in getting it past, voting for it. Hence, the Majority Dem Senate failed as far as I am concerned.

And before anyone goes "BUT REPUBLICANS" no shit, they were the ones who wanted this shit passed in the first place. DUH they are going to vote for it, I just figured after all the things I have heard about Dems being better and more moral than Repugs I would actually see it. Guess not.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
Well, if Dub & Dick hadn't slammed it through congress on a wave of fearmongering hysteria in the wake of 9/11, we wouldn't be worried about renewing it or not...

If it weren't renewed, the Right wing punditocracy would be raving about Dems being soft on Terrar! and the usual idiots would be fawning over that.

It wasn't long ago that Dems attempted to soften some of the more egregious parts, but Repubs were having none of it...
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Well, if Dub & Dick hadn't slammed it through congress on a wave of fearmongering hysteria in the wake of 9/11, we wouldn't be worried about renewing it or not...

If it weren't renewed, the Right wing punditocracy would be raving about Dems being soft on Terrar! and the usual idiots would be fawning over that.

It wasn't long ago that Dems attempted to soften some of the more egregious parts, but Repubs were having none of it...

Completely agree, those cocks. Good thing we have another chance to shut it down... well we will in a few years at least. Then when they pimp it again we can say "Well if only Dubya and Dick hadn't of pushed it through so the Senate could renew it a few years later, we wouldn't have to bitch about them renewing it now."

Maybe I'm finally starting to 'get it'?
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Well, if Dub & Dick hadn't slammed it through congress on a wave of fearmongering hysteria in the wake of 9/11, we wouldn't be worried about renewing it or not...

If it weren't renewed, the Right wing punditocracy would be raving about Dems being soft on Terrar! and the usual idiots would be fawning over that.

It wasn't long ago that Dems attempted to soften some of the more egregious parts, but Repubs were having none of it...

Totally ignoring that Reid was championing it this time around, the typical partisan hacks drops the b-b-b-but Booooosh!!! line.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Totally ignoring that Reid was championing it this time around, the typical partisan hacks drops the b-b-b-but Booooosh!!! line.

I feel terrible for Nevada. They couldn't vote Reid out because they really did only have worse alternatives... wtf?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,684
136
Completely agree, those cocks. Good thing we have another chance to shut it down... well we will in a few years at least. Then when they pimp it again we can say "Well if only Dubya and Dick hadn't of pushed it through so the Senate could renew it a few years later, we wouldn't have to bitch about them renewing it now."

Maybe I'm finally starting to 'get it'?

Totally ignoring that Reid was championing it this time around, the typical partisan hacks drops the b-b-b-but Booooosh!!! line.

Maybe you're both just disingenuously lame. Terrarist! scaremongering is still a mainstay of your political heroes. It's how the act came to be law in the first place. Or are you merely employing convenient memory lapses?

So long as Repubs can muster 40 votes to filibuster meaningful change, the act will remain as is because the scaremongering still works. Witness the raving over the underwear bomber.

If having something to rave about is more important than changing the act for the better, vote Republican, because they'll oblige.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
In other words more Republicans were for this pos than were Democrats. Democrats are less bad on this issue, and pretending there is no difference between the parties is complete BS.


So these two friends walk into a local pub. It's a big place and very busy. One happens to be a staunch Democrat and the other a faithful Republican. While they are waiting for their drinks one notices that there are two senators sitting at the bar. One is a Dem and the other a Rep. The two senators order the same drink then without warning they stand up and draw guns.

BANG BANG BANG BANG! The Republican puts four bullets in a waitresses head.

BANG BANG BANG! The Democrat shoots another with equal precision right in the temple.

Both women are emphatically dead.

Now the two friends are shaken, but strange as it may seem everyone else goes on as if this is business as usual, and the two senators resume drinking.

Finally the Democrat turns to the Republican and says. "See! I told you Democrats were morally superior to Republicans!" The other turns and says "What do you mean? Both those women were brutally murdered!"

Without hesitation the Democrat says. "Isn't it obvious? The Democratic senator only shot her three times."
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Maybe you're both just disingenuously lame. Terrarist! scaremongering is still a mainstay of your political heroes. It's how the act came to be law in the first place. Or are you merely employing convenient memory lapses?

So long as Repubs can muster 40 votes to filibuster meaningful change, the act will remain as is because the scaremongering still works. Witness the raving over the underwear bomber.

If having something to rave about is more important than changing the act for the better, vote Republican, because they'll oblige.

my political heroes? i didn't know i had any... and scaremongering is a mainstay of politics PERIOD. Also if the Dems could make a decent argument against it while the Republicans did their silly little filibuster they could get voter support. You know like they did when the assholes rammed it through in the first place. Honestly I'm not even a political strategist and I can see they would gain from that quite easily. Making an argument AGAINST the patriot act is EASIER today than it was back when it initially got passed.

But whatever, I've come not to expect much from politicians.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
So these two friends walk into a local pub. It's a big place and very busy. One happens to be a staunch Democrat and the other a faithful Republican. While they are waiting for their drinks one notices that there are two senators sitting at the bar. One is a Dem and the other a Rep. The two senators order the same drink then without warning they stand up and draw guns.

BANG BANG BANG BANG! The Republican puts four bullets in a waitresses head.

BANG BANG BANG! The Democrat shoots another with equal precision right in the temple.

Both women are emphatically dead.

Now the two friends are shaken, but strange as it may seem everyone else goes on as if this is business as usual, and the two senators resume drinking.

Finally the Democrat turns to the Republican and says. "See! I told you Democrats were morally superior to Republicans!" The other turns and says "What do you mean? Both those women were brutally murdered!"

Without hesitation the Democrat says. "Isn't it obvious? The Democratic senator only shot her three times."

Dictionary definition of 'false analogy'. Just what is expected from the king of false equivalency.
 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Dictionary definition of 'false analogy'. Just what is expected from the king of false equivalency.

Please explain why this is a "false analogy". Wait - you'll probably say the Republican shot a minority, because he was a racist.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,883
641
126
Please explain why this is a "false analogy". Wait - you'll probably say the Republican shot a minority, because he was a racist.
The Republican was a racist even if he didn't shoot. All Republicans are racists, or sluts.

Everyone knows this.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,153
0
0
So these two friends walk into a local pub. It's a big place and very busy. One happens to be a staunch Democrat and the other a faithful Republican. While they are waiting for their drinks one notices that there are two senators sitting at the bar. One is a Dem and the other a Rep. The two senators order the same drink then without warning they stand up and draw guns.

BANG BANG BANG BANG! The Republican puts four bullets in a waitresses head.

BANG BANG BANG! The Democrat shoots another with equal precision right in the temple.

Both women are emphatically dead.

Now the two friends are shaken, but strange as it may seem everyone else goes on as if this is business as usual, and the two senators resume drinking.

Finally the Democrat turns to the Republican and says. "See! I told you Democrats were morally superior to Republicans!" The other turns and says "What do you mean? Both those women were brutally murdered!"

Without hesitation the Democrat says. "Isn't it obvious? The Democratic senator only shot her three times."

Yeah this analogy doesn't hold in this situation. What the voting record shows, and not just this one but the last renewal as well, is that the left wing of the Democratic Party (the progressive caucus in the house) will vote against renewal. In the last renewal, in the House IIRC it was a bunch of dems from the progressive caucus plus one libertarian republican: Ron Paul, who voted against it. So while the Democratic Party, as a political party, has failed to stand up against it in sufficient numbers, the evidence suggests that the further to the left the person in question, the more likely is he or she to oppose. That nuance puts this into a context which I'm afraid tends to weaken the thrust of your analogy. The Democratic Party isn't one person as in your analogy - it is a collection of people with differing viewpoints, and a collection which happens to contain more in opposition than the opposing collection.

Not only that, but the core philosophy of the party - Liberalism - is associated with opposition to this bill, as evidenced by the fact that those who voted against renewing it have voting records further to the left of those who voted for it, e.g. they tended to favor single payor health care over more market drive approaches. So the problem appears to be some democrats, not liberalism. Another way of putting it is this: the further right you move, the more likely you support this law, regardless of party affiliation.

I will mention in fairness that more republicans voted against it this time than the last, so perhaps the GOP is very slowly starting to come around.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,267
126
Dictionary definition of 'false analogy'. Just what is expected from the king of false equivalency.

Just what I would expect from the King of Political Hacks. The facts are that the majority of dems supported this. The facts are that Obama, your photogenic President wants more than his predecessor did in terms of warrantless wiretaps. Want me to bring up his stated perspectives during the campaign? No you don't.

Politicians who supported this should be ashamed. Parties who supported it should. Their supporters should.

You? You'll blame republicans.