Republican gang rape party

[Teloz]

In English Law, any term in a contract that is deemed to be "unreasonable" cannot be enforced. I'm very surprised that there is no similar ruling in American Law.

If I'd been that girl or if she'd been my daughter, I would have found a gun and killed the bastards!

 

[NastyBastard]

In English Law, any term in a contract that is deemed to be "unreasonable" cannot be enforced. I'm very surprised that there is no similar ruling in American Law.

If I'd been that girl or if she'd been my daughter, I would have found a gun and killed the bastards!

You have guns??

I love international politics. Brits helping Americans with their legal system, which is based on the British legal system, a nice circle to it.

Now, you all continue to play nice-like while you beat up Evil Republicans. Those rapers!

 

[Belegon]

In this case, I don't think a pet group per se (like Haliburton) is what's on the Gang of Thirty's mind. Not that it isn't a factor. Of course3 it is.

The major pet issue is rather mandatory opposition against anything the Dempocratic party proposes. And for some, specific opposition against Al Franken.

I completely agree with this.

The "inside war" is so powerful that if the Democrats presented a bill saying 2+2 = 5, all the Dems would vote for it and the Repubs would try to amend it to say "except when it equals 3."

Common sense is not a part of the process.

 

[3113]

Now, you all continue to play nice-like while you beat up Evil Republicans. Those rapers!

I did play nice, as you'll note, by giving credit to other republicans who voted "yes." But you make your bed, you lie in it. If Republicans or any other group is going to foster and encourage being rude, obstructionist and upheld by those who use name calling, threats, etc. etc. etc. rather than being civll, courteous, rational and thoughtful in arguing for their positions, then they're going to end up being "beat up."

Bullies who dominate the playground for eight years, slamming into law what they want no matter what damage it does to others, then resort to being nasty and engaging in cheating and dirty tricks when they can't keep having what they want exactly as they want it, don't get much sympathy when they're called to the font of class for doing something wrong.

If the Republican party, in general, finally decides to play nice themselves--and that includes certain people here more intent on denigrating a political position out of bias rather than discussing it's merits/demerits--then they will be shown equal courtesy in turn. And more people will point out that it's certain members of the party, not the party, to blame when things like this happen.

You reap what you sow.

 

[sr71plt]

I did play nice, as you'll note, by giving credit to other republicans who voted "yes." But you make your bed, you lie in it. If Republicans or any other group is going to foster and encourage being rude, obstructionist and upheld by those who use name calling, threats, etc. etc. etc. rather than being civll, courteous, rational and thoughtful in arguing for their positions, then they're going to end up being "beat up."

Bullies who dominate the playground for eight years, slamming into law what they want no matter what damage it does to others, then resort to being nasty and engaging in cheating and dirty tricks when they can't keep having what they want exactly as they want it, don't get much sympathy when they're called to the font of class for doing something wrong.

If the Republican party, in general, finally decides to play nice themselves--and that includes certain people here more intent on denigrating a political position out of bias rather than discussing it's merits/demerits--then they will be shown equal courtesy in turn. And more people will point out that it's certain members of the party, not the party, to blame when things like this happen.

You reap what you sow.

Oooo. That works in so many ways in so many venues.

 

[3113]

Oooo. That works in so many ways in so many venues.

It does if people try it. Unfortunately, the mode of thinking that's been fostered over the last few decades is that courtesy and common sense is for suckers, and winners are those who show no mercy and engage in whatever dirty tricks they can to win. Being nasty and mean, cruel and rude is to be admired. We want to be on the side of the maverick. This assumes, of course, that once you do this and win big, which these people do tend to do, that the opposition is dead and gone forever.

But all you've really done is teach the opposition how to fight in this way and slam you in turn. Repeat as necessary. The question then becomes, when someone does try to break the cycle and offer courtesy even to those who have shown him none, will he be admired and, thus, discourage those who continue to use those brutal tactics or will he be dismissed as a wimp?

 

[sr71plt]

The question then becomes, when someone does try to break the cycle and offer courtesy even to those who have shown him none, will he be admired and, thus, discourage those who continue to use those brutal tactics or will he be dismissed as a wimp?

Oh, he'll be dismissed as a wimp, of course. But if he doesn't suck into the game and the situation isn't an "arms and legs" one, he won't have a reason to care much.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

Many years (nearly 40) ago I used to draft small scale contracts for government purchases. The range of conditions I had available to use were standard for all government purchases by my department.

The ones that were compulsory, that I couldn't leave out, included:

- preferential employment for disabled veterans (or a current certificate from their local employment office that there were no suitable disabled veterans locally)

- sick pay for employees

- legitimate payment to employees and sub-contractors including relevant taxes

- recognition of unions' rights to negotiate for individuals' disputes with their employer (NOT union recognition, just the employee's right, if they wanted it to have a union person representing their case and to be present as a "friend" at any disciplinary hearing)

- that nothing in the contract should be contrary to English (or Scots if appropriate) Law.

Jeanne (for Og)

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

How does this demonstrate anything about "both parties"? Are gang-rape victims a "pet group"?
What the fuck are you defending in this?

Halliburton vs. ACORN, for example. Both very corrupt. But my point is that I'm not fond of either party these days.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

In this case, I don't think a pet group per se (like Haliburton) is what's on the Gang of Thirty's mind. Not that it isn't a factor. Of course3 it is.

The major pet issue is rather mandatory opposition against anything the Dempocratic party proposes. And for some, specific opposition against Al Franken.

I'd rather not discuss Senator Frankenstein. I am trying to eat dinner, thank you very much.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Halliburton vs. ACORN, for example. Both very corrupt. But my point is that I'm not fond of either party these days.

Oh please. Halliburton has paid fines bigger than the total amount of federal money that's gone to ACORN.

Here's some truthful reporting about the Right-wing campaign against ACORN.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

So they're radicals with questionable ethics who believe that the ends justify the means. That doesn't make them honest. It just makes them ruthless ideologues. Granted, they probably have altruistic motives, which is more than you can say for Halliburton, but I still view them in a negative light.

All in all, I'll make both parties earn my trust and my vote. Otherwise....well, there are third parties.

 

[Dragonlipz]

Halliburton vs. ACORN, for example. Both very corrupt. But my point is that I'm not fond of either party these days.

Change the channel and try to educate yourself.....turn off FOX and do some thinking for a change.....

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I refuse, personally, to be swayed by the "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch" partisan defense of either the contractors or the community organizers, or any other such pet group.

To quote my dad, when you're in favor, you can do nothing wrong. When you're out of favor, you can do nothing right.

This kind of partisan, kneejerk defense of certain groups or organizations that have been caught red-handed is simply revolting. Excuse me while I roll my eyes and leave this thread alone. I don't want to lose my supper.

Nothing personal against my fellow Litizens, but I call bullshit. I like you, but I won't help you defend voter fraud.

There's a reason I'm not a Republicrat.

 

[Liar]

I'd rather not discuss Senator Frankenstein. I am trying to eat dinner, thank you very much.

See, this is exactly the kind of petty attitude that makes those Rep senators oppose the "let's not give govenment contracts to companies that protect rapists" amendment out of sheer spite.

Oh, and did ACORN commit voter fraud?

The stories I've seen have been about fake names on ACORN voter registration forms, which happened because ACORN subsidiaries were lazy and they thought they could scam ACORN for provision money that they got per completed registration. Net result, no fraudulent votes, extra costs and bad PR for ACORN to sort out the fradulent registrations, which they reported as soon as they happened.

If you have other cases, then I'd be happy to take a look at them. But if that's it, then yelling voter fraud is pure shennanigans. There sure seems to be plenty of other flaws and intances of corruption there, but so far I have to call a big "meh" on the voter fraud thing.

 

[Belegon]

See, this is exactly the kind of petty attitude that makes those Rep senators oppose the "let's not give govenment contracts to companies that protect rapists" amendment out of sheer spite.

Oh, and did ACORN commit voter fraud?

The stories I've seen have been about fake names on ACORN voter registration forms, which happened because ACORN subsidiaries were lazy and they thought they could scam ACORN for provision money that they got per completed registration. Net result, no fraudulent votes, extra costs and bad PR for ACORN to sort out the fradulent registrations, which they reported as soon as they happened.

If you have other cases, then I'd be happy to take a look at them. But if that's it, then yelling voter fraud is pure shennanigans. There sure seems to be plenty of other flaws and intances of corruption there, but so far I have to call a big "meh" on the voter fraud thing.

I agree. The stuff about "voter fraud" that I saw seemed more like ACORN employees defrauding ACORN to get a bigger/easier paycheck, not like ACORN defrauding the electorate.

But I haven't done any indepth examination. Sorry, but ACORN isn't even peanuts next to the size and damage of some other things. Sunflower seeds, maybe.

 

[Boota]

The sole issue here trumps everything. If you are a Republican 75% of your senators support rape. If this isn't what you expect out of your leaders I would recommend you find new political affiliations. Their votes said, "If you give me enough money you can rape whoever you want to." Fuck ACORN and all this other stuff. Republican senators support gang rape. If you support them, then you support gang rape. It's really very simple. You can let some things go, but other things are deal breakers. Or should be.

I guess their Christian Right masters are okay with this position. I haven't heard otherwise.

The Republican senator from my state, Dick Lugar, voted against gang rape. Despite his affiliation with the Republican party Lugar has always proven to be a good man. He is an old school Republican, though. Not one of these rather new fascist Republicans, i.e. neo-cons.

 

[3113]

Oh, and did ACORN commit voter fraud?

They didn't, but the bigger (and latest) deal was made of the fact that a pair of actors, working for Fox news, went in and tried to get money from ACORN--the guy said he was a pimp and implied he was whoring out illegal immigrant women. Some employees were caught on tape giving this guy advice on how to fill out the forms. This scandal resulted in congress taking away ACORN's money and shouting very loudly that tax payer dollars should not be subsidizing any corrupt company. And yes, the Republicans shouted loudest.

It seems that a tiny amount of tax dollars given away with a lot of scrutiny to poor people is to be cut off at the merest hint that certain employees might not be honest--but huge amounts are to be freely given to big companies even if they rape and imprison their employees.

 

[3113]

Halliburton vs. ACORN, for example

Apples and oranges, Sev. Make a better comparison or your logic and argument falls short.

 

[trysail]

...the 30 who voted to allow gang rape to go unpunished.

Anybody care to amend this statement? ... or will it remain yet another immortal half-baked Internet "truth"? 'n you know what? I'm not going to do the work for you. If you want the facts, you're just going to have to do some work yourself instead of believing the first story you hear.

Sheesh. Remind me not to go anywhere near you folk when you get in a lynching mood.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

See, this is exactly the kind of petty attitude that makes those Rep senators oppose the "let's not give govenment contracts to companies that protect rapists" amendment out of sheer spite.

Oh, and did ACORN commit voter fraud?

The stories I've seen have been about fake names on ACORN voter registration forms, which happened because ACORN subsidiaries were lazy and they thought they could scam ACORN for provision money that they got per completed registration. Net result, no fraudulent votes, extra costs and bad PR for ACORN to sort out the fradulent registrations, which they reported as soon as they happened.

If you have other cases, then I'd be happy to take a look at them. But if that's it, then yelling voter fraud is pure shennanigans. There sure seems to be plenty of other flaws and intances of corruption there, but so far I have to call a big "meh" on the voter fraud thing.

So, what ACORN isn't to be held accountable for the acts of its subsidiaries? What hogwash! I can guarantee that any other PAC or corporation would be held to account for such a lack of responsible oversight.

As for Franken, I am sure that he is a case in point of the Democratic tendency toward fraudulent victories. But even supposing that he won lawfully, he still makes me sick, with his complete lack of gravitas.

And, no, I'm not a Republican these days. That seems to have been forgotten, the moment I criticized anything Democratic. I think it's a kneejerk, defensive reaction, to be honest. And for the record, I disapprove of the whole Halliburton deal. I respect anyone who voted against it for that, even if I might otherwise have issues with them (Lugar, for example).

As for pettiness, well, that goes both ways with a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. And that's my point. Democrats attack anything Republican, unconditionally and defend even their guilty friends. And Republicans do the same. That point has been lost in the minutiae about the degree of ACORN's culpability in certain cases (and no, I don't mean the fake hooker/pimp deal.....that's not even on my radar screen, especially since it was entrapment). I could name Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so as to be "apples to apples", if I wanted to suit 3113's nitpicking.

My point remains. Both sides fanatically defend their own. It's the partisan version of "my country, right or wrong". Let's call it "my party, right or wrong".

 

[cantdog]

The sole issue here trumps everything. If you are a Republican 75% of your senators support rape. If this isn't what you expect out of your leaders I would recommend you find new political affiliations. Their votes said, "If you give me enough money you can rape whoever you want to." Fuck ACORN and all this other stuff. Republican senators support gang rape. If you support them, then you support gang rape. It's really very simple. You can let some things go, but other things are deal breakers. Or should be.

I guess their Christian Right masters are okay with this position. I haven't heard otherwise.

The Republican senator from my state, Dick Lugar, voted against gang rape. Despite his affiliation with the Republican party Lugar has always proven to be a good man. He is an old school Republican, though. Not one of these rather new fascist Republicans, i.e. neo-cons.

Both of my Republicans, Snowe and Collins, sided against gang rape. They're still assholes, but it's nice they could let that go one time.

 

[cantdog]

So, what ACORN isn't to be held accountable for the acts of its subsidiaries? What hogwash! I can guarantee that any other PAC or corporation would be held to account for such a lack of responsible oversight.

As for Franken, I am sure that he is a case in point of the Democratic tendency toward fraudulent victories. But even supposing that he won lawfully, he still makes me sick, with his complete lack of gravitas.

And, no, I'm not a Republican these days. That seems to have been forgotten, the moment I criticized anything Democratic. I think it's a kneejerk, defensive reaction, to be honest. And for the record, I disapprove of the whole Halliburton deal. I respect anyone who voted against it for that, even if I might otherwise have issues with them (Lugar, for example).

As for pettiness, well, that goes both ways with a lot of people on both sides of the aisle. And that's my point. Democrats attack anything Republican, unconditionally and defend even their guilty friends. And Republicans do the same. That point has been lost in the minutiae about the degree of ACORN's culpability in certain cases (and no, I don't mean the fake hooker/pimp deal.....that's not even on my radar screen, especially since it was entrapment). I could name Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, so as to be "apples to apples", if I wanted to suit 3113's nitpicking.

My point remains. Both sides fanatically defend their own. It's the partisan version of "my country, right or wrong". Let's call it "my party, right or wrong".

You're not a republican. That seems to have been forgotten. Jesus.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You're not a republican. That seems to have been forgotten. Jesus.

Since I criticize the Right at times, just as I do the Left (my mandatory minimums thread is a case in point), I don't see any grounds for sarcasm here. My use of ACORN was an illustration of how the Dems have their friends that they back unconditionally, just like the GOP.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Since I criticize the Right at times, just as I do the Left (my mandatory minimums thread is a case in point), I don't see any grounds for sarcasm here. My use of ACORN was an illustration of how the Dems have their friends that they back unconditionally, just like the GOP.

Both the Senate and the House voted overwhelmingly, Dems included, to cut off ACORN's funding. So how is that unconditional backing? When ACORN was shown to have problems, the Democrats (rightly or wrongly) cut them loose. The Republicans are still protecting Haliburton after far, far, FAR worse crimes.