Stank hoes.

How so? He was trying to equate the vote on the Iraq war with the vote on experimental drugs in a way to try and deflate the unanimous nature of the vote. He screwed the pooch using the phrase "close to unanimous".

77 to 23 is quite far removed from "close to unanimous".

See, even Frowny ****s up sometimes.

I should've said should.

No, the point, my thick-headed friend, was that overwhelming political support for something doesn't mean it's not garbage. You're just being a pedant. And not a very good one.

I love being talked down to.

UNANIMOUS.

Iraq War = 77-23

Experimental drugs for people who are going to die anyways = 100 - 0

Point being that a 100 to 0 vote means that not single senator feels threatened by the bill. There could have been lots of grandstanding over this, but 100 elected men and women studied the bill via their suborninates and deemed it worthy.

But wait. Frowny is concerned. Let's stop the presses.

(1) Close to unanimous is not unanimous. I think 77 is "close to unanimous", but I could see how it's subjective and 77% may not be enough of an overwhelming majority for you to use the statement.

(2) Putting that aside, I think you're losing focus from the point, which is: just because people are in agreement about a topic/decision doesn't mean it's a good/right.

(3) It's not about because they are going to die anyway. There is more nuance to it than that. Curious what you thought about my previous lazy statement about if this was a case of churches pushing exorcisms/prayer, if you would be okay with it? It's perfectly safe which means it passes the first round of standards, but is it really the kind of thing we want to be backing?

I don't equate phamacutical drugs with prayer/excorcism. And churches do push prayer already.

And where's the nuance? Your physician sits you down and tells you that they've exhausted all options and there's nothing else they can do for you and that you probably have 6 months to live. I don't see any nuance in that scenario.

One thing to consider is that the majority of the senate is Chrisitian. You'd think that at least a couple of the more extreme zealots would have opposed the bill on some sort of moral grounds.

You can say that again!

Major lulz on the Christian thing though.

Why? Bible thumpers get up in arms over almost anything. "If God says it's your time, you shouldn't be allowed to interfere."

:laughing: