|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 7, 2009 14:10:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 7, 2009 15:26:27 GMT -5
Already a thread on this somewhere around here....
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 7, 2009 16:19:26 GMT -5
I live in the Fourth Congressional District, which gave us Marilyn Musgrave, but I'm not surprised by Republican douchery no matter where they are. It makes me sad how often my beloved Colorado produces these bigots and fools. Focus on the Family, Marilyn Musgrave, Tom Tancredo, Dave Schultheis... sigh.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 7, 2009 17:07:32 GMT -5
I remember seeing that quote. He is disgusting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 7, 2009 17:30:12 GMT -5
"I'm not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions." Right, that explains the astronomical cigarette taxes and seatbelt and helmet laws and...oh, another politician with his head up his ass. This is a flawed argument (I know that it's actually snark and doesn't count as an argument, but still). If you knew that this politician supports those kinds of laws, it would be reasonable to point out the inconsistency. But he said he wasn't sure that "should be" the role of government, so the fact that those laws exist shows no inconsistency whatsoever within his statement. I think he's scum too, but I really hate that kind of argument, and I just felt it necessary to say something. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Mar 7, 2009 17:43:33 GMT -5
....is he actually advocating...HATE CRIMES!?
Ironbite-well fuck me running.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 7, 2009 18:14:18 GMT -5
....is he actually advocating...HATE CRIMES!? Ironbite-well fuck me running. It's kind of hard to tell, but I think he's saying that not enough babies have AIDS. Seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Mar 7, 2009 20:04:31 GMT -5
What about protecting people from the actions of others? In fatal drunk driving accidents, the drunk driver is usually not the one killed. What did the baby born with AIDS do to deserve being punished?
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 7, 2009 20:15:21 GMT -5
What about protecting people from the actions of others? In fatal drunk driving accidents, the drunk driver is usually not the one killed. What did the baby born with AIDS do to deserve being punished? Well, you gotta set examples. |
|
|
|
Post by Deimos on Mar 7, 2009 22:42:54 GMT -5
Nice bacteriophage pic
Anyhoo, this Dave guy is a prick.
Lucky I don't live in America
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 7, 2009 23:01:03 GMT -5
"I'm not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions." Right, that explains the astronomical cigarette taxes and seatbelt and helmet laws and...oh, another politician with his head up his ass. This is a flawed argument (I know that it's actually snark and doesn't count as an argument, but still). If you knew that this politician supports those kinds of laws, it would be reasonable to point out the inconsistency. But he said he wasn't sure that "should be" the role of government, so the fact that those laws exist shows no inconsistency whatsoever within his statement. I think he's scum too, but I really hate that kind of argument, and I just felt it necessary to say something. The ONLY role of civil law is to help people who are wronged by others: ie to 'protect them (the plaintiffs) from their responsibilities'. If he really believes this, then, by extension he also believes that negligence, libel, ect, should be unpunishable. |
|
|
|
Post by stormwarden on Mar 8, 2009 1:05:59 GMT -5
To me, he is just one more sign that the Repubs are self-destructing.
|
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Mar 8, 2009 2:33:15 GMT -5
People like that remind me of Ronald Reagan's former speechwriter Terry Dolan. Terry despised gay rights and championed "family values." Unbeknownst to his right-wing flunkies, Terry would mysteriously leave in the dead of night and cruise around D.C. in his car.... In 1987, Terry died of AIDS complications.
|
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 8, 2009 7:47:56 GMT -5
This is a flawed argument (I know that it's actually snark and doesn't count as an argument, but still). If you knew that this politician supports those kinds of laws, it would be reasonable to point out the inconsistency. But he said he wasn't sure that "should be" the role of government, so the fact that those laws exist shows no inconsistency whatsoever within his statement. I think he's scum too, but I really hate that kind of argument, and I just felt it necessary to say something. The ONLY role of civil law is to help people who are wronged by others: ie to 'protect them (the plaintiffs) from their responsibilities'. If he really believes this, then, by extension he also believes that negligence, libel, ect, should be unpunishable. The question addressed by that particular snark isn't whether his beliefs are reasonable; it's whether they're consistent (in effect, with the current practice of the US government, which is not a useful argument). |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Mar 8, 2009 9:49:46 GMT -5
Said it before, will undoubtedly say it again.
This is how LOTS of cons think. More then once when pushed, I have had cons admit that a lot of their opposition to things like abortion and AIDS research and welfare is that they truly believe that PUNISHMENT when bad things like this happen to someone is the only way to stop it. IF something bad happened to someone, it's their fault because they deviated from the norm as the cons see it. Mitigating circumstances mean nothing. One can't claim ignorance because anyone should know that deviation will have negative consequences.
One can see this even when the cons aren't being honest by looking at their actions. Like how they say women shouldn't get abortions because Life is sacred BUT also have no problem cutting programs that would help a single mother. Life may be precious but the mother still needs to be punished for having sex out of wed lock. Abortion is less about the fetus and more about mother's sin.
I do not think most Americans see it this way, however. And why cons generally aren't as open about their feelings as this guy here. They know they are in the minority on this and people would reject their message if they understood it's true basis.
|
|
