![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() i think it's interesting that the patriot act is brought up with regards to the senate voting record, and instead of conceding the point, riot starts talking about everything except that senate vote...
the fact is that although on occasion, dems seem more inclined to support an individuals rights, you still have that vote referenced above, and of course a democratic president signing the defense of marriage act into law. for votes, of course. not because the dems wanted to protect rights, but to protect their own phoney baloney jobs. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
How in the world is listing the actual votes (disproving Chuck's claim) "talking about everything except that vote"??? That's a crazy statement.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 09-19-2011 at 04:15 PM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The "so called" Patriot act was passed by the Senate 98-1. Seems like a whole lot of Democratic Senators were tuned into GOP.tv that day then he wrote this, re-iterating what i just linked above: 98-1 in favor of the Patriot act. but yeah, i'm just making it up. anytime someone posts something you don't want to concede the point on, you start throwing a bunch of other stuff out there, as tho people will somehow forget the point being made because you attempt to muddy the waters...much like dell in the other thread posting a link about solyndra, so you start throwing out some republicans supposedly in on the deal, as tho others being involved removes some of the tarnish from your precious president and his dem cronies. you can't explain or defend the 98-1 vote, so just throw out other garbage in an attempt to deflect. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Hang on, trying again under my sig:
Quote:
Yeah, he also wrote the below. So before you accuse me of something I didn't do (in fact, I did the opposite) maybe try reading the entire thread. Quote:
![]() Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts Last edited by Riot : 09-19-2011 at 06:21 PM. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() yes, riot, i said muddying because you could say nothing in regards to what chuck mentioned twice--the senate vote....just like doma, it sailed right thru. it doesn't fit with your perception, so you ignore it as tho it didn't happen. can't let anything affect the tint of those rose-colored glasses of yours.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
You trying to make it seem like I was referring to the Senate only is beyond absurd. You falsely saying I am "muddying the waters" by posting the actual vote to point out his false characterization of the Congress is absurd. You saying I ignored it is absurd. Talk about "rose-colored glasses"
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
That would be 98% 145 out of 207 Democratic Representatives voted yes for the Patriot Act That would be 70% So please explain to me how I was "demonstrably" wrong? 8 out of 10 Democratic Congressmen voted FOR the Patriot act including 98% of the Senators yet you want to contest my statement? LOL |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Oh, and include the renewal of the Patriot Acts' three provisions - who was against that? And I'll point out that once again, as is your wont, you've avoided discussing the question, and created a false straw man diversion. Can't debate the subject, huh? Here was the comment you were trying to answer by changing the subject to the Patriot Act. Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
no, the patriot act was most definitely something passed by both parties. not just one, and certainly not just the other. a disgrace that belongs too all our wonderful leaders. yep, they know what's best for us peons. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Tell that to Chuck. He thinks it was a Democratic thing. I was the one that posted the article link about how all branches of government, and all parties, have been corroding our rights. You know, I'm "one of those people".
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
GOP.tv remember? |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() She refuses to admit that the Democrats voted overwhelmingly FOR the Patriot Act. No one ever made any insinuation other than that despite Riot's attempt to twist.
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]() yes, i know.
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Of course then you deflect to the Tea Party which has nothing to do with the Patriot act or those who passed it. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]() It's pretty apparent you can't follow a thread. But if trying to insult me as a "mentally deficient radical" makes you feel smart, have at it.
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|