Please tell me that thing is in the GIF Bank? Because that should be in the GIF Bank.
1 Like
Let me get this straight. Many in the GOP are supporting anti-trans laws because they say they wanted to protect young girls in restrooms from sexual assaults even though there was never such incidents but theyāre sticking up for the guy who attempted to diddle young wrestlers he coached?
8 Likes
False evenhandedness over a literal rapist likely pedophile? Come on now.
2 Likes
Yes. That is the GOPās idea of morality. And I feel no issues in calling out the GOP so long as they keep doing it, regardless of how many drone strikes are ordered by the current POTUS.
1 Like
I think youāre in the wrong thread. Try to Sanders voting thread instead.
1 Like
This isnāt just about minimum legal age to consent to sex. Anyone who is subordinate to someone who is in a position of authority over them ā even if the age gap isnāt 30+ years ā is not able to give real consent.
11 Likes
Well, no. The headling āLeading democrats support Obama whose foreign policy accepts the death of babies as acceptable collateral damage, possibly because of their ethnicityā would be accurate. But Iām pretty sure Obama didnāt blow up anyone himself. If someone wants to hold Obama responsible for the deaths caused by US foreign policy they are welcome to (I do!).
This man raped children in his care.
To support Obama while Americans bomb the middle east, some people need to compartmentalize their idea that āracism is badā and ākilling people is badā from their idea that ābombing the middle east based on cell phone locations without even checking if the target is there is necessary.ā
These people writing letters are compartmentalizing āraped childrenā from āswell guy.ā To me, thatās staggering.
If your central point was that people would be less angry if Democrats were supporting a Democrat who raped kids were the talking point, I donāt think thatās true. Making excuses for raping children isnāt a big passtime on these boards, nor is making excuses for US foreign policy under Obama.
But if your central point is that people around here seem to skew Democrat rather than Republican, I will not argue.
13 Likes
Well, I guess when you donāt have the Vatican to cover it up, you need to rely on the Party of NO!
I can think of at least .01% of the people who agree with you wholeheartedly on the question of regulation in financial institutions.
But that article is a fear freak fest. CTRās are what are filed as a matter of course (and only on 10G & up,not 5G), not SARās. SARās are filed only where the bank/bank employee has cause to do so. That they ignore that makes the entire article a complete joke.
No, people withdrawing cash to buy a used car donāt get characterized as suspicious without some other mitigating factor that the bank must give the government. No, the restaurant owner depositing his dayās take is not considered suspicious.
Note that the article states:
Federal regulations already require banks to submit a āSuspicious Activity Reportā (SAR) when, āTransactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or moreā¦ā according to the handbook for the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council.
See that āā¦ā You know what that means from others doing it, right? The people you are suspicious of I expect. Hereās the rest:
ā¦if the bank or affiliate knows, suspects, or has reason to suspect that the transaction:
May involve potential money laundering or other illegal activity (e.g., terrorism financing).54
Is designed to evade the BSA or its implementing regulations.55
Has no business or apparent lawful purpose or is not the type of transaction that the particular customer would normally be expected to engage in, and the bank knows of no reasonable explanation for the transaction after examining the available facts, including the background and possible purpose of the transaction.
Then thereās the cite-free claim that the government forces banks to meet a quota of SARās each month, forcing the bank to file SARās on un-suspicious activity.
That claim does two things, it undermines the article by being un-cited where other statements are backed up (albeit in a way intended to deceive). The second thing it does is tear up the basis of the article, eat it and shit it out again.
Why does the article claim all transactions 5000 & up are receiving this treatment and then state that there are quotas, that to be met, forces banks to include transactions that would not otherwise be included
I mean cāmon, every law and regulation has itās downside, but if you want to highlight that, donāt pour out a pile of shit and ask people to pick out the peanuts.
2 Likes
Iām just saying that Obamaās drone program literally blows up babies, he and other politicians are responsible for that (Obamaās administration doesnāt merely āacceptā a foreign policy that materializes autonomously but actively pursues and authorizes drone strikes, then covers up the aftermath), but that has virtually no effect on his supporters, and a lot of them are angry about this GOP rapist thing. The hypocrisy is readily apparent. Iām not saying everyone here is an Obama supporter, I feel like I made that clear in my first post, Iām just pointing out that GOP morals-bashing as weāre seeing here is definitely coming from some Obama supporters. Itās just ridiculous to, as you say, compartmentalize oneās moral outrage that way.
I mean, I said itās not a 1:1 relationship. And anyway theyāre both appalling acts, itās just that I canāt take somebodyās moral compass seriously if they in any way lend their support to a party or government that regularly kills innocent people by the thousands. These types of articles gin up outrage at the GOP. Generally you donāt see BB publishing dirt on Democrats the way they do on the GOP and it is just a bitā¦meh.
The came could be said for WWII allies, even when we werenāt targeting entire cities. The ugly truth is, when soldiers in a war are mixing will civilians - especially when not wearing uniforms - civilians are going to get killed.
I donāt support much of what the drone program has done, even when they say theyāve tried to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. (The US practice of ādouble tapsā - targeting rescuers with a second strike after the first - something even the US calls terrorism - is NOT ākeeping civilian casualties to a minimum.ā) Not even for a noble cause. (Killing the terrorists before they kill others.)
But Iām still not going to equate it with Hastert deliberately targeting minors for his own sexual gratification rather than any noble cause.
Thatās not what Iāve seen. The big disappointment of Obama is that heās run the country as a continuation of the Bush II administration. (Less torture, more drones.)
Itās just that heās so much better than the 2012 Republican clown car (most of whom demanded the return of torture) and the 2016 clown car (ditto). Heck, both Trump and Cruz demand carpet bombing, and even Rand Paul called for drone strikes against robbery suspects in America.
6 Likes
Sure they do. All the time. Countless stories on domestic spying for example.
Itās just that itās damn hard to find an exclusively anti-Democrat story. The bad policy is inevitably also Republican policy.
This has been the Republicansā dilemma: For all the sanctimonious anti-Obama and anti-Hillary outrages theyāve grandstanded, itās damn hard to find one that doesnāt apply equally to them or wasnāt long-term Republican policy. Even ObamaCare is best described as ā15 years of mainstream Republican policy until the moment Obama adopted it.ā
5 Likes
My goodness are you sad that an equivalency doesnāt exist. So very sad.
Iām no fan of the DNC but handwaving away a block of child rapists and their systemic supporters because you demand full ideological balance that doesnāt exist, wow.
So have you actually read any of BBās stories on drone deaths, domestic spying, president Obama, Guantanamo, Hillary Clinton? Because the rest of us have, so this claim is curious and only shows your personal biases, not BBās.
7 Likes
Itās a two party system. Sometimes, you have to choose between bad and worse.
Obama has been a BIG disappointment to me. When he was first elected I thought, finally, we had a relatively liberal Democrat in office. Silly me.
Some of what the Democrats want to do I feel is unethical, immoral, or illegal. But what the Republicans want to do is far, far, far worse. You can choose isolated actions by either party and compare them and say OK this is worse than that. But when you sum up what the Republicans want, it comes out to hell on earth ā unless youāre white, male, Christian, and rich.
The mess in the middle east has been a continuing nightmare for decades. W managed to make a bad situation worse. I would guess heās responsible for killing lots of babies too. But I bet Obama has lost more sleep over the morals of it than W ever did.
7 Likes
I disagree with Obamaās foreign policy, but your point would make sense if Republicans werenāt inclined to do the same or similar that Obama has done. If a Republican gets elected president, you can bet that the drone program will not go away. It might be supplanted by having more boots on the ground as the primary method of fighting a war?-no-weāre-not-really-at-war! kind of war. Romney or McCain could be on the news right now in an alternate world telling us why itās necessary to send more troops into Syria or why itās okay Syrian and Iraqi babies are getting bombed.
You assume support of Obama or Democrats in general based on justified criticism of Republicans. Thatās inaccurate dichotomous thinking. Thereās no mutual exclusivity on criticizing the hypocrisy or ethical vileness of any member of any political party.
4 Likes
My disappointments with Obama have always been where he acts like a Republican of recent memory. (Which always leave baffled at those that would try to court my vote by playing upon the disappointments I have with Obama. The alternative selection would have only been that much worse.)
Personally, I donāt āsupportā the Democrats so much as I feel that I have few other viable choices. The Democrats may be way too far to the right for me to actually be happy with them, but the other leading brand is even farther to the right. (Dreams of an actual leftist party seem to remain just that: dreams.) In the end, itās Hobsonās choice.
5 Likes
No, there is no hypocrisy. We make distinctions between people in power doing awful things being supported by their political parties and people sticking their necks out to support those who have been convicted of criminal offenses. Killing foreign children has been US policy supported by both parties and the majority of the population for decades, itās not Obamaās morals, itās American morals.
Itās like weāre at a KKK meeting where someone is being ousted for stealing from the organizationās treasury and you are standing up and saying, āYeah, but our violent racism is worse than theft, so who are we to judge?ā
6 Likes
In general I think. For serious crimes anyhow. If thereās a prospect of real jail time them I see no reason that people should be able to go scot free just because they hid their crimes.
Sure, if a kid steals a comic from a store 50 years ago itās not in the public interest, but rape and murder? Those things should never go away.
2 Likes
Youād make a terrible AnarchoCapitalist, I guess.
