Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: And “activist judge” is code for “thinks women are people” Previous entry: Jeb on flailing GOP: give up Reagan worship, the party has no strategy

Video: Dems ‘protect pedophiles’ but not the troops

Here we go, as the GOP knows its fortunes are going down the tubes, they have to resort to the usual bullsh*t lies, twisting the hearings on hate crimes legislation to suggest that Congressional Dems “support protecting pedophiles” and not troops. Of course the fact that members of the military have not been systematically singled out as a group targeted by hate crimes is irrelevant, but facts don’t matter to them.

The fact is that during debate over this bill the GOP tried to add all sorts of demographic groups that also haven’t been the target of hate crimes, like pregnant women, senior citizens, etc. in order to try to derail the legislation—it didn’t work. But you see, 2010 is coming up quickly and the party has no ideas to help out Congressional candidates.

Considering the party’s history of enabling and even promoting the pedophiles, rapists, serial adulterers, and sexual predators in its midst, all while projecting piety, it would be refreshing to see the Republicans to actually try to win on the issues. However, this level of desperation shows that they don’t think they can sell their ideas to anyone, so it’s back to the tried-and-true, garden variety extremist scare-tactics. Who, aside from the 20-25% hardcore fringe, will take this stuff seriously?

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 09:47 AM • (15) Comments

I, for one, was almost convinced. All I needed to see was a nuclear explosion at the end and I’d be GOP forever!

It’s like watching a soap opera, and not one of the good ones, either. You’ve heard, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.” In that light, the GOP is certifiable.

On the other, hand, they have money to protect, sweet, precious old people people.

Comment #1: The New Anarchist  on  05/04  at  10:48 AM

I, for one am still shocked and appalled!  I am simply disgusted by the fact that the GOP still refuses to propose amending the hate crime bill to prohibit phlogiston theft!  Unlicensed faster-than-light travel!  Or even unicorn poaching!  Won’t somebody think of the unicorns?

Comment #2: Scott the Obscure  on  05/04  at  11:18 AM

The troops have guns and tanks and training and shit. They should be able to protect themselves.

Comment #3: spence-bob  on  05/04  at  12:14 PM

They might actually have a point if a) the bill protected disgusting felons like pedophiles which it most certainly does not and b) they asked to have the homeless included as part of their “protect the Vets” rant. The homeless Vietnam veteran beaten to death by unfeeling, uncaring (probably republican) teenagers should have been protected from that kind of violence. But oops, I’m sure these same nuts think it was all his fault he was homeless and probably on drugs or something. Never mind that he served his country. They think the homeless don’t deserve to have a place to live much less a RIGHT to live.

Comment #4: DC Fem  on  05/04  at  12:19 PM

David Neiwert tore through this bullshit on his blog. The Republicans are trying to obfuscate the issue. They claim hate crime laws create special rights and protected groups. So they’ve been trying to create just that: special rights and protected groups. Veterans, pregnant women, etc… these are specific groups in society that would be granted special protection by their proposals. Whereas hate crime laws make it a crime to go after someone for their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc… but they don’t specify *which* race or sexual orientation. All citizens are equally under the protection of hate crime laws.

The plan of the GOP is to somehow muddle this fact, by banking on the fact that most people will just assume that any bill will specifically say it’s illegal to go gay bash, rather than bash anyone for whichever sexual orientation they may have (you know, like O’Reilly’s wild lesbian gangs attacking breeder men and women in the street).

Comment #5: BlackBloc  on  05/04  at  01:14 PM

I for one agree. The Democrats didn’t do nearly enough to get Mark Foley thrown out of Congress and prosecuted.

That’s what they mean, right?

Comment #6: RickMassimo  on  05/04  at  01:25 PM

After all, Haley Barbour is on on that New America bullshit.  We know how much Haley Barbour likes keeping actual criminals in jail.  He pardoned a guy that had beat the holy shit out of his wife for years and, after she left him, the guy tracked her down and brutally murdered her on a busy street corner.  Barbour did it because the murderer was such a “nice fellow.”  The Republicans have no credibility on crime-related issues (unless it is in regard to committing them).  Outright lies won’t help.

Comment #7: Spooky Skeptic  on  05/04  at  02:32 PM

“The homeless Vietnam veteran beaten to death by unfeeling, uncaring (probably republican) teenagers should have been protected from that kind of violence.”

I suspect Republicans only care about veterans of wars America won.  Had the man been a veteran of WWII, either Gulf War, or Grenada, there would have been cries of outrage.

Comment #8: fmitchell  on  05/04  at  02:41 PM

Spooky Skeptic:

I don’t doubt you on Haley Barbour, he’s a real piece of work.  But do you have a link?

Comment #9: seeker6079  on  05/04  at  02:46 PM

“Pam is a one trick pony.
How predictable.”

You’re such a great projector — have you ever thought of showing movies?...

...and again, the door’s open, feel free to use it and never soil your beautiful mind here again…

Comment #10: MikeEss  on  05/04  at  03:58 PM

I wonder why Franklin is even still here. There’s no fucking way he could outclever that stick.

Comment #11: kristin  on  05/04  at  05:09 PM

thats just so goddamned fucking *insulting*

i was molested when i was 5 and six by a “family friend”
know what he went to jail for? THEFT. why?
because the Air Force said that if he was sent to jail for molesting a little girl, he would be killed in jail. the judge told me that if he was killed in jail, he would not get all the punishment that he deserved. (at the time, this made sense to me. i would have *much* rather been spanked than been grounded. it seemed the same thing… i was SIX, ok. don’t judge. smile


NO ONE who is *not* a pedophile wants to protect pedophiles. although, to be perfectly frank, killing a pedophile because s/he is a pedophile *would* qualify as a hate crime, i canNOT see anyone who isn’t also a pedophile actually defending the pedophile based on the hate-crime legislation. as in, if someone beats the hell out of a pedophile for being a pedophile, i can’t see a District Attorny prosecuting it as a hate crime (unless that DA was a pedophile and didn’t mind everyone under the sun speculating about him/her also being a pedophile)

but, for obvious reasons, i feel *very* strongly about people who act on pedophiliac tendencies. i feel that the *first* time one is caught molesting/raping a child, s/he should be castrated or equivilent. and jailed for a long time. the second or third time, they should be killed. its the rabid dog theory - if the person cannot control themselves (and/or seek help for fucks sake!) then they are *NOT* safe to be around people. period. children who are molested almost never fully recover. and it happens a lot more than we are willing to admit, because to all too many people, children aren’t *people* - the are possessions. so when a jackass in Brazil (it was Brazil, right?) rapes his 9 year old stepdaughter (except she was probably 8 at the time, and there is reason to believe he started when she was six) the Catholic Church acts as if THIS IS OK! rape the girl all you want! just don’t abort the result to save her life! because that man *owns* her, don’t you know!
sorry. /rant

Comment #12: denelian  on  05/04  at  11:56 PM

Actually, it turns out that a lot of women murder victims are pregnant.  They’re killed because they threaten someone’s freedom or finances or sense of control.  So I can kind of see including them as a category of victims of hate crime.

But I suppose the reasoning of the wingers is that the special victim is the fetus, not the woman.

Comment #13: oldfeminist  on  05/05  at  01:18 AM

Pam is a one trick pony.

How predictable.

Why am I not surprised that Frankie thinks pedophilia is A-OK?

Comment #14: Dan, Grand High Emperor of Bananas Foster  on  05/05  at  05:47 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.