Republican gang rape party

[SEVERUSMAX]

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.

Okay, no longer unconditional. But it took an act which offended potential voters in the middle to get them to do that. It's very recent and as soon as they can get away with it, I predict ACORN will get its funding reinstated.

 

[ottohauser1977]

I would cite La Raza as a more extreme case. They make all immigrants look bad with their militancy. As a German emigre, I find them rather disturbing. For starters, their name....I think that you can see why someone with my background would be uncomfortable with a group called "The Race".

And I am a Democrat (a bit left of Obama on some issues and to his right on others).

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Okay, no longer unconditional. But it took an act which offended potential voters in the middle to get them to do that. It's very recent and as soon as they can get away with it, I predict ACORN will get its funding reinstated.

"No longer" and "unconditional" are mutually exclusive terms, Sev. If the support was ever unconditional, then it wouldn't have ended. So clearly there were conditions. N'est pas?

And your prediction for the future isn't really much evidence in this debate, is it? Nevermind the foolishness of comparing a community organization to a multinational corporation in the first place, your argument that each side has its pets that it'll defend even when they're shown to be not worth defending is built on a fallacy. Right?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

"No longer" and "unconditional" are mutually exclusive terms, Sev. If the support was ever unconditional, then it wouldn't have ended. So clearly there were conditions. N'est pas?

And your prediction for the future isn't really much evidence in this debate, is it? Nevermind the foolishness of comparing a community organization to a multinational corporation in the first place, your argument that each side has its pets that it'll defend even when they're shown to be not worth defending is built on a fallacy. Right?

Point taken about ACORN. You won that argument fair and square. It just means that I used the wrong example. It doesn't mean that the Dems are any less militant about defending their ties to certain groups. They still haven't owned up to their ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and no one has, despite their denials, refuted the fact that they supported subprime lending. They have claimed that it didn't trigger the recession, a debatable proposition. But they haven't been vindicated on their backing of the GSEs. Chris Dodd, anyone?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I would cite La Raza as a more extreme case. They make all immigrants look bad with their militancy. As a German emigre, I find them rather disturbing. For starters, their name....I think that you can see why someone with my background would be uncomfortable with a group called "The Race".

And I am a Democrat (a bit left of Obama on some issues and to his right on others).

Don't get me started with La Raza. Another fringe group for sure.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Point taken about ACORN. You won that argument fair and square. It just means that I used the wrong example. It doesn't mean that the Dems are any less militant about defending their ties to certain groups. They still haven't owned up to their ties to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and no one has, despite their denials, refuted the fact that they supported subprime lending. They have claimed that it didn't trigger the recession, a debatable proposition. But they haven't been vindicated on their backing of the GSEs. Chris Dodd, anyone?

Not even touching that debate, although I'll be happy to join in if you'd like to start a thread, but are you really comparing ties to financial institutions to defending Halliburton in this instance? Seriously?

If you'd like to show us an entity with strong ties to major figures within the Democratic party that they've defended unconditionally despite anything even remotely this egregious, I'm all ears.

 

[ottohauser1977]

I'll agree with you that gang-rape is horrendous, but I suspect that while there are no such cases yet (I add yet because of Murphy's Law), the Democrats would sell their souls just like the Republicans. I suspect that is Sev's point, even if he can't find an exact match, because either it hasn't occurred yet, or they haven't been caught yet. He is simply, I gather, finding the best available illustration. Admittedly, one is hard-pressed to find something on quite that scale.

But, unlike you, I get his point and agree with him on the basic notion, because I know human nature. His examples are only flawed because he is limited in his options.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

I get his point just fine. My point is that his is wrong. And he's "limited in his options" because there is absolutely no equivalent to this on the other side. There isn't even a candidate to be an equivalent, as we've just established.

 

[ottohauser1977]

I get his point just fine. My point is that his is wrong. And he's "limited in his options" because there is absolutely no equivalent to this on the other side. There isn't even a candidate to be an equivalent, as we've just established.

So, the Democrats are "simon-pure" and would automatically turn in a crook who happened to back them? Give me a break! I would, but I don't trust anyone, even a fellow liberal. I share his cynicism, because anything other than cynicism is a bit naive. Take it from someone who has been all over the political spectrum, and lived under Communism to boot.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

So, the Democrats are "simon-pure" and would automatically turn in a crook who happened to back them? Give me a break! I would, but I don't trust anyone, even a fellow liberal. I share his cynicism, because anything other than cynicism is a bit naive. Take it from someone who has been all over the political spectrum, and lived under Communism to boot.

That's not even stretching what I said, that's just putting words in my mouth.

We're talking about a group of Republicans trying to protect a company from being sued for RAPE. There is no equivalent to that on the other side. None. Nada. Zippo. Sorry if that doesn't fit your worldview, but it's simple, undeniable fact.

And I will take it from someone who has been (and still is) all over the political spectrum and has lived under communism to boot. Me.

 

[ottohauser1977]

That's not even stretching what I said, that's just putting words in my mouth.

We're talking about a group of Republicans trying to protect a company from being sued for RAPE. There is no equivalent to that on the other side. None. Nada. Zippo. Sorry if that doesn't fit your worldview, but it's simple, undeniable fact.

And I will take it from someone who has been (and still is) all over the political spectrum and has lived under communism to boot. Me.

So, what are you saying, then? That Democrats are just better people? Trust me, judging by my ex-wife and my in-laws, not to mention some others I met who are fellow Dems, that is not the case. Or just that they know a better class of crooks?

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

So, what are you saying, then? That Democrats are just better people? Trust me, judging by my ex-wife and my in-laws, not to mention some others I met who are fellow Dems, that is not the case. Or just that they know a better class of crooks?

No, see, I'm discussing a specific topic. Most of us here are. And I'm not going off down some path of tangental generalizations with you.

You don't like Democrats. I get it. The point of the thread stands: A bunch of Republican senators voted to protect Halliburton from being sued for gang rape. And my specific points stand: The ACORN comparisons are way off base; and there is no gang-raping company being protected by Democrats long after it's been shown for what it is.

Now, I mean it. I'm not going off down some absurd, unrelated path with you. You want to drag Democrats in on this subject? Find us a Liberalburton.

 

[ottohauser1977]

No, see, I'm discussing a specific topic. Most of us here are. And I'm not going off down some path of tangental generalizations with you.

You don't like Democrats. I get it. The point of the thread stands: A bunch of Republican senators voted to protect Halliburton from being sued for gang rape. And my specific points stand: The ACORN comparisons are way off base; and there is no gang-raping company being protected by Democrats long after it's been shown for what it is.

Now, I mean it. I'm not going off down some absurd, unrelated path with you. You want to drag Democrats in on this subject? Find us a Liberalburton.

Hello, in case you didn't notice.....I am a Democrat. I voted for Obama (though I considered voting for Nader) I support a number of liberal causes. But I don't like your attempt to pretend that our party has some moral high ground just because our friends aren't as bad as theirs.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Hello, in case you didn't notice.....I am a Democrat. I voted for Obama (though I considered voting for Nader) I support a number of liberal causes. But I don't like your attempt to pretend that our party has some moral high ground just because our friends aren't as bad as theirs.

Who says it's my party? I'm capable of identifying reprehensible things independent of party affiliation.

And when one side is defending gang rapers and their protectors, I think we can set generalizations aside and award the other side the moral high ground in that instance. Does that seem unreasonable?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

No, see, I'm discussing a specific topic. Most of us here are. And I'm not going off down some path of tangental generalizations with you.

You don't like Democrats. I get it. The point of the thread stands: A bunch of Republican senators voted to protect Halliburton from being sued for gang rape. And my specific points stand: The ACORN comparisons are way off base; and there is no gang-raping company being protected by Democrats long after it's been shown for what it is.

Now, I mean it. I'm not going off down some absurd, unrelated path with you. You want to drag Democrats in on this subject? Find us a Liberalburton.

So, because there is, as you claim, no equivalent here, the Democrats are morally superior? Horseshit! They just haven't been caught with something yet. The operative word being yet. And that's this term. I won't get into the whole Lorel deal and the Chinese, with the inherent treason of it, because that was the Clinton era. But it does demonstrate that the Dems are not untainted saints or whatever.

If my examples fail, it's only because the cases I noted don't involve a violent crime. There are few things, if any, that can equal violent crime in terms of evil, I'll grant you that much. But I wouldn't put it past the Dems. Far from it.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Who says it's my party? I'm capable of identifying reprehensible things independent of party affiliation.

And when one side is defending gang rapers and their protectors, I think we can set generalizations aside and award the other side the moral high ground in that instance. Does that seem unreasonable?

And so am I. I never said that Halliburton isn't dirty. I just said the other side is capable of equal deceit and hypocrisy. Even if they haven't protected it in this particular case.

I'm glad that at least Otto can see that far ahead. Even if most people here, sadly (I say sadly because I do consider most of them friends, except the ones on my iggy list like Mr. Dragon and Mr. Consonants) do not.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You know, Sev, and Otto, when a guy is standing trial for murder, his lawyer can't say that some other dude probably might have stolen a car and so is just as bad.

That's not an adequate defense. Hell, it's not a defense at all!

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You know, Sev, and Otto, when a guy is standing trial for murder, his lawyer can't say that some other dude probably might have stolen a car and so is just as bad.

That's not an adequate defense. Hell, it's not a defense at all!

I'm not defending Halliburton, or the GOP. I'm just trying to give some perspective, to present an alternative mood to the whole choir used to being preached at by their priests. To point out that neither party has clean hands. That's all. Somehow, this got side-tracked and became about my illustrations, not about the point that I was using them to illustrate.

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

So, because there is, as you claim, no equivalent here, the Democrats are morally superior? Horseshit! They just haven't been caught with something yet. The operative word being yet. And that's this term. I won't get into the whole Lorel deal and the Chinese, with the inherent treason of it, because that was the Clinton era. But it does demonstrate that the Dems are not untainted saints or whatever.

If my examples fail, it's only because the cases I noted don't involve a violent crime. There are few things, if any, that can equal violent crime in terms of evil, I'll grant you that much. But I wouldn't put it past the Dems. Far from it.

This isn't some shady political contribution, Sev. This is fucking GANG RAPE. Jesus Christ, set your politics aside for a minute and think about what you're saying. Imagine this the other way around, that it was the Blue crew trying to legally protect a corporation from gang rape lawsuits. Wouldn't anyone defending them sound like an asshat, to say the least? Do you really want to cast yourself in that role, defending those who defend gang rape? To anyone on earth except those thirty amoral snakes, this transcends politics.

Show me where I've made any generalizations about anyone's moral superiority. We're talking about a very specific, very reprehensible thing. Although again, I don't think it's a big stretch to award the high ground in this instance to those who aren't protecting rapists.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

This isn't some shady political contribution, Sev. This is fucking GANG RAPE. Jesus Christ, set your politics aside for a minute and think about what you're saying. Imagine this the other way around, that it was the Blue crew trying to legally protect a corporation from gang rape lawsuits. Wouldn't anyone defending them sound like an asshat, to say the least? Do you really want to cast yourself in that role, defending those who defend gang rape? To anyone on earth except those thirty amoral snakes, this transcends politics.

Show me where I've made any generalizations about anyone's moral superiority. We're talking about a very specific, very reprehensible thing. Although again, I don't think it's a big stretch to award the high ground in this instance to those who aren't protecting rapists.

Hello, for the millionth time, let me repeat this.....

1. I'm not a Republican, so I have no partisan agenda where this issue is concerned.
2. I'm not defending the GOP vote.
3. I'm not defending Halliburton.
4. I'm simply saying that I suspect that were the positions reversed, most Democrats would have voted to protect gang-rapists and their accomplices themselves, sad it as it sounds. I don't buy for a second their pontificating claims to the contrary. That was my point.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm not defending Halliburton, or the GOP. I'm just trying to give some perspective, to present an alternative mood to the whole choir used to being preached at by their priests. To point out that neither party has clean hands. That's all. Somehow, this got side-tracked and became about my illustrations, not about the point that I was using them to illustrate.

let's put it this way. While every party has dirty hands, some hands wear the kind of dirt we can survive and even not be mangled by.

The repubs have had their hands in a cesspit.

It really is insane to complain about the anger they have fueled-- they fueled it.

4. I'm simply saying that I suspect that were the positions reversed, most Democrats would have voted to protect gang-rape themselves, sad it as it sounds. I don't buy for a second their pontificating claims to the contrary. That was my point.

So far, the Dems are proving you wrong.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

let's put it this way. While every party has dirty hands, some hands wear the kind of dirt we can survive and even not be mangled by.

The repubs have had their hands in a cesspit.

It really is insane to complain about the anger they have fueled-- they fueled it.

This time....I don't doubt that the situation will reverse itself in the future, because that's human nature.....to be hypocritical in defense of their side.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This time....I don't doubt that the situation will reverse itself in the future, because that's human nature.....to be hypocritical in defense of their side.

got a date in mind? A timeline for that future event?

 

[SixtyMinuteMan]

4. I'm simply saying that I suspect that were the positions reversed, most Democrats would have voted to protect gang-rapists and their accomplices themselves, sad it as it sounds. I don't buy for a second their pontificating claims to the contrary. That was my point.

As we've already established, the Dems wouldn't even hang onto ACORN in the face of far more trivial charges than gang rape. I humbly submit that your suspicions are unfounded and smack of political derivation.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, I suspect that you're being a bit naive and biased, but we'll agree to disagree on that one.

And, no, Stella, I don't have a date. Just a rather sharp mistrust of politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle.