This is irony.
Damo and Freak - Voting for Schaffer?
- Thread starter Bonestorm
- Start date
Is it? I thought your defense of Schaffer based on the idea that he didn't do anything illegal was pretty choice.
If you can't tell the difference between serving as Abramoff's point man for the defense of the Mariana Islands and in keeping US labor laws from being implemented there notwithstanding the multiple reports of child slavery, slavery, rape, force abortion, forced prostitution and the like as compared to the Clinton Foundation accepting money for its charitable work from someone that might benefit from a bill that is under consideration by the Senate that Hillary Clinton would vote for anyway (along with every single Republican and 35 other Democrats) and that passed by unanimous consent in a previous Congress I cant help you.
But, yeah, go ahead and pretend Clinton did something horribly horribly wrong unlike the "penultimate" honest man in politics.
Yeah, the difference between you and I?
When I learned more about it. I stopped defending it.
You expect somebody to vote against their beliefs because of something like this, I expect us to seek to limit the amount of influence money has in legislation. I didn't even suggest you shouldn't vote for somebody because of it.
There are about a billion reasons that we are different on this matter. The most apparent one is your devotion to "defend" against a request that we apply ethics rules that make money less powerful in our legislation.
You are a weak man who thinks a letter "D" makes perfection happen.
Actually, you didn't stop defending it. You tried to derail the thread with posts about ad hominems and how you would go ask Bob about it but you continued to defend the "penultimate" honest man in politics.
I'm all in favor of keeping money out of politics, but it isn't going to happen (See, Buckley v. Valeo). The real problem with this as applied to Clinton is the lack of any quid pro quo. As I said, the same bill passed by unanimous consent previously. There was no quo here.
I stopped defending what he did there. I still voted for Schaffer.
As I said, I never suggested you vote against your political affiliation because of this. I suggested we work to implement rules that make it so pay to play is more difficult.
You attempt again to make it equivalent, and it fails because of the reality of the huge difference between the things we seek.
I won't defend going on vacation on the Abramoff dime, and I will continue to suggest we set ethics rules so that people who donate to politicians cannot benefit from their support. And if such rules are implemented I will expect R's to follow them.
You can defend that as you will, but I seek actual change in government as I am sick of coin operated nonsense as I have spoken against for the past decade or so since we "met" online....
And as I said, "The appearance of quid pro quo"...
You can't even comprehend my argument because you can't see past your "D" colored glasses.
Set the rules, make it so neither party can be bought. That's what I hope to see someday. If you cannot see the possibility of impropriety because a "D" gets in your way, then there really is no way to get you to comprehend.
Rubbish. His own words...
"You didn't stop defending it, you started talking about something else!"
The attempt to make that mean other than, "I stopped talking about it" is laughable.
I notice you waited until I appeared to be inactive before posting this....
Weak as heck.
Dung has been totally owned in every way all day. I'm thinking of getting a leash.
LMAO. You should have seen my face, my eyes actually widened. That almost never happens here.
I did what? LMAO
I have no idea how you 'appeared" Damo, you nut.
you are totally stoned or drunk for your birthday, and you are fooling a lot of people, but Damo, I know you're stoned.
Yeah, because you can't look at "Whose Online"...
Yeah, because you can't look at "Whose Online"...
The point is - I didn't, I wasn't, it didn't even cross my mind.
But then, I'm sober.
Right. You let the thread sit all day long, until the time I was inactive, then jumped in here on coincidence.
That's cool. I totally believe you. Really. I mean I really do without sarcasm.
Your sad attempt to say that when I stopped talking about it and started talking about something else I hadn't stopped talking about it?
Right, it is hilarious. I am thankful that you were willing to prove my point. Once I looked into it further I stopped talking about it.
You, however suggest that such impropriety should merit me changing parties and voting against my own beliefs. Why haven't you changed parties?
Damo has been smoking some tainted shit that he got for his birthday. He thinks your humiliating him means he owned you, and he really believes I am watching him in "who's online" to wait until he's inactive before I post.
I think it must have been laced with LSD.
KingCondanomation
New member
The charges of slave labor and sweatshops are bullshit when put in context. A lot of the workers come there from China precisely because the pay and conditions ARE better than their homeland.
To lefties it is slave labor, to the people working there it is a step up.
To lefties it is slave labor, to the people working there it is a step up.
Only Darla could desperately attempt to become an apologist for this steaming helping of ownership heaped upon Dungheap whereon he says, "You didn't stop talking about it! You changed the subject!"
Duh. Changing the subject, even for ad hominems, is no longer talking about it.