• commentary
  • FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 21 2007 9:00 AM

Time To Take The Dems Behind The Barn And Shoot Them



It happens all the time in movies. Really Bad Man talks Sort Of Bad Guy into fucking over his own friends. Sort Of Bad Guy does it because Really Bad Man is convincing and a little scary. So, Sort Of Bad Guy delivers his friends to Really Bad Man. Then Really Bad Man kills them and turns the gun on Sort Of Bad Guy.


    Sort Of Bad Guy
    But…but I helped you. I…I got you what you wanted.

    Really Bad Man
    You think I’d trust a guy who fucks over his friends?


Then Really Bad Man shoots Sort Of Bad Guy in the face. In this case, the Democrats are Sort Of Bad Guy and shooting them in the face seems like an okay idea.

I do not recall seeing, in my lifetime, a party so relentlessly pathetic as the current Democratic Party. Yesterday, I wrote about the Republican’s record-breaking filibuster festival. That sort of bullshit is to be expected from the Republicans, who have no concern about destroying America to get what they want. And the Democrats could do nothing to stop it. Yet, the Democrats don’t seem to realize that they should not actually help Republicans further their agenda. Yesterday, the Senate voted to condemn a MoveOn.org ad that criticized General Patreaus. In doing so, they spit in the faces of many who voted them into office.

Let me see if I can explain this to the Democrats: The Republicans have been trying to demonize MoveOn, but America just thinks it’s the usual partisan, left-right bullshit and doesn’t pay attention. Then you guys in the Senate vote to condemn MoveOn, which legitimizes the Republicans accusations. This is what’s known as a retarded move because, YOU DON’T VOTE AGAINST YOUR OWN BASE. It’s just at tip, you fucking idiots.

Voting to condemn the ad is voting to support the Republican agenda. It helps to justify Republican claims that MoveOn is a lunatic fringe group, which is an incredible exaggeration. Republicans fear MoveOn, because the group can quickly gather funds and attack Republican candidates anywhere in the nation. The right hates MoveOn because it is effective, not because it is a fringe group. Thankfully, Democrats just took a dump on the hand that feeds them. Nice work.

Harry Reid is a fucking idiot for allowing this vote onto the Senate floor. Yesterday the GOP stopped three important bills that the Democrats had put forward. Today, Dems should have told the GOP and their petty bill to go fuck themselves. Reid should have stopped the bill, then introduced several bills condemning Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh for their repeated hate speech. Or how about finally condemning the Swift Boat organization for making far worse allegations against John Kerry than MoveOn ever did against Patraeus? If Reid can allow himself to be manipulated and bullied by the minority party, he should step down. Immediately. Or at the very least, he should replace his picture on his Senate website with a douchebag.

The vote completely betrays the principle of the 1st amendment. We don’t give the Senate authority, salary, security, privilege and power so they can vote on what American citizens should and should not be saying. The ad said that if the General was not honest it would be a betrayal of the troops. How the fuck is that worthy of the Senate’s time? It’s called freedom, maybe these idiots should try to get an understanding of what it means.

In the end, what did the Democrats achieve by voting for this resolution? They insulted the people who worked so hard to get them into office in 2006. The let the left know that they are not entitled to the same free speech as the right wing and that if the Republicans pick on the Democratic base, their Senators will help to stick the knife in their gut.

See, the Democrats would rather go along with the bullshit than actually put up a fight. Better to fuck over the people who put you in office than show a little courage. And that is not just this vote, but everything. They rolled over when they were the minority party and now they are rolling over when they are the majority party. What was needed today was for one Democrat to stand up and say:


Hey, that ad was right. Patreaus’ report was a bucket load of bullshit and the lies need to stop.


But it won’t happen. Obama ran out the back door, like a coward. Hillary voted no.* All together, 25 Democrats voted to condemn a group that worked to get them elected. Could you envision the Republicans doing the same thing if the tables were turned? Yeah, me neither.

FearTheReaper just donated $100 to MoveOn. He's never given them money before, but it's the only way to appropriately respond to this idiocy.

*correction

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

SEP 21, 2007 04:35 PM

FearTheReaper said:
So, MoveOn asked their membership if they should respond to the vote. The answer was an overwhelming affirmative. They have sent an ad to the NY Time for publication on Sat.

Definitely makes me laugh.



Sweet !

SockPuppet

SockPuppet

I'm lost
July 2006

SEP 21, 2007 06:32 PM

AshenLight said:
Okay, this kind of proves there's no hope. I'm starting to feel comfortable with Flux's assertion in the "bloop" thread:


Regardless, we're all going to die.



Whoa. You believed you weren't going to?

surreal

Tiger_Fodder

Tiger_Fodder

Braintree, MA
June 2007

SEP 21, 2007 07:06 PM

It is a sad day when I miss Ross Perot!

Heathen_Dave

Heathen_Dave

Birmingham, AL
July 2005

SEP 21, 2007 08:48 PM

Formus said:
I just submitted this as news in my general ignorance caused by avoiding FTR articles outside of the Baseball group. But one thing he failed to mention:

Mr. Obama had voted minutes earlier in favor of an extremely similar resolution proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.

Ms. Boxer's proposal, which failed, called for the Senate to "strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism" of anyone in the United States armed forces. It did not mention the MoveOn.org ad. Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Clinton also voted in favor of Ms. Boxer's proposal.



That's right - that one failed. And it says the exact same thing. It's the most convoluted and confusing thing that's ever fucking existed.



Easy!

Democrats are willing to condemn a general behavior which sounds distasteful to everyone ("Don't you bad-mouth our military! Regardless of what we have said to bad-mouth our military in the past!") but are, of course, unwilling to attack a specific organization from which comes a significant portion of their support.

I'm going to assume that it was the Republicans who stopped the first bill; it had the message they wanted, which is bullshit the message means nothing, but it didn't publicly denounce Moveon, which would shine poorly on the Democrats. With Republican support and some support from Democrats who wanted to seem pro-military (that's my guess) they were able to pass the second bill.

So. Democrats willing to say something, not willing to do anything. Republicans willing to do something without really saying anything. Good show Senate.

Also, nice try Senator Boxer, but pushing that first bill to the vote in hopes that you would be able to distance your party from Moveon's current image without actually damaging ties with them while seeming righteously indignant was a little transparent.

Who the fuck are these bunch of idiots? What?

Oh that's right. Our legislators. Nice.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

SEP 21, 2007 09:27 PM

Archaneus said:

Admiral_Pants said:

No one has violated the First Amendment. Moveon.org has neither been prevented from running the ad nor punished for doing so. The only thing that's different is that Congress now officially thinks that ad is mean.



I see your point but I think the government endorsed denouncement of a political statement in this official capacity is a kind of violation of freedom of speech. The government has the right to say that they disagree with the points being made, but they don't really have the right to pass a movement in Congress condemning something that speaks against them. I suppose this is a hard distinction to clear up without bringing in a Constitutional law expert, but personally I think the government overstepped it's bounds in this matter.



That's really fascinating, Kalamazoo, but they didn't. At all. The Senate has First Amendment rights just like everyone else. Unless they're making something illegal (which they emphatically did NOT), there are no Constitutional issues implicated here.

Heathen_Dave

Heathen_Dave

Birmingham, AL
July 2005

SEP 21, 2007 09:34 PM

Just so we can all be clear here...

Did this bill actually do anything?

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

SEP 21, 2007 09:36 PM

Heathen_Dave said:
Just so we can all be clear here...

Did this bill actually do anything?


No.

cowboybert

cowboybert

West Palm Beach, FL
September 2006

SEP 21, 2007 09:39 PM

KUNGFOO said:
Once again, I think Keith Olbermann sums up the situation surrounding this quite well in this opinion piece:



That guy kicks ass. I wish I could afford cable if there are actually commentators like that on the news channels.

mattacme

mattacme

Calistoga, CA
February 2006

SEP 21, 2007 09:41 PM

Its a continuing travesty that deeply irks me, a New Deal Democrat.

Is there no one out there with the stones to just stand up to these Republican SOBs and tell it like it is?

Heathen_Dave

Heathen_Dave

Birmingham, AL
July 2005

SEP 21, 2007 09:48 PM

mattacme said:
Its a continuing travesty that deeply irks me, a New Deal Democrat.

Is there no one out there with the stones to just stand up to these Republican SOBs and tell it like it is?



No. They need money. Money likes puppets. Money doesn't like individualists.

Archaneus

Archaneus

Kalamazoo, MI
October 2006

SEP 21, 2007 11:37 PM

Subrosa said:
That's really fascinating, Kalamazoo, but they didn't. At all. The Senate has First Amendment rights just like everyone else. Unless they're making something illegal (which they emphatically did NOT), there are no Constitutional issues implicated here.



There is a difference between stating an opinion and legislating the denouncement of someone else's which is effectively saying they can't say what they said. Regardless, that is not the main issue here. I think most of us, if not all, can agree this was a downright stupid move on the part of everyone who voted for this. The most good(I mean political gain, not actual good) that could possibly have come from it is Republicans shoring up the support of the less than 30% that's still behind them. All the democrats who voted for this succeeded in merely alienating a huge section of their base. I was very happy to see that both of my senators voted against it. I was especially shocked that Levin voted against it seeing as he has been pretty middle of the road and almost pandering to the Republicans through these recent years. At the very least I think some good came out of this in that it gives us more data to add to the package when trying to figure out who we can count on to not fold under pressure in Congress.

Admiral_Pants

Admiral_Pants

Austin, TX
May 2004

SEP 22, 2007 12:24 AM

Archaneus said:
legislating the denouncement of someone else's which is effectively saying they can't say what they said.



Once again for those of you in the back:

NO. IT'S NOT.

Keep trying, though. Maybe it'll be true the next time you say it.

Archaneus

Archaneus

Kalamazoo, MI
October 2006

SEP 22, 2007 12:30 AM

Admiral_Pants said:

Archaneus said:
legislating the denouncement of someone else's which is effectively saying they can't say what they said.



Once again for those of you in the back:

NO. IT'S NOT.

Keep trying, though. Maybe it'll be true the next time you say it.



You're right, they are not making it illegal to make the article and it's a truly pointless gesture with no actual political authority to it. However, they are still legislating their opinion that it was incorrect to print it. Legislating that someone's opinion was improper is implying that they shouldn't have said it. I'm done arguing this because everyone seems to be taking what I am saying as if I mean they are actually outlawing the act itself. What I am saying is that the act of voting on this in the senate is effectively saying that the government has the right to legislate their idea of "good taste," which is bullshit. I understand if you don't think it's a big deal that they did this but I believe it's a slippery slope situation. Regardless I'm withdrawing my hat from this conversation because it just keeps getting rehashed wrongly over and over again.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

SEP 22, 2007 01:18 AM

Heathen_Dave said:

mattacme said:
Its a continuing travesty that deeply irks me, a New Deal Democrat.

Is there no one out there with the stones to just stand up to these Republican SOBs and tell it like it is?



No. They need money. Money likes puppets. Money doesn't like individualists.



I'm sorry, are you planning on understanding what the the fuck you're blathering about any time soon? Just curious.

reprobate

reprobate

New Orleans, LA
December 2002

SEP 22, 2007 01:34 AM

Heathen_Dave said:

Who the fuck are these bunch of idiots?



People who can be bothered. Try and join them, sometime.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next