« prev   random   next »

4
0

I Can't Wait to Smell Tammy Baldwin's Face in the US Senate!

By APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch following x   2012 Nov 11, 7:00am 4,542 views   30 comments   watch   nsfw   quote     share    


And lick it!

And run over to the psychoconservative senator fucktards and ask them for a buck to sniff my tongue!

Assholes!

I hope she shows every day with her wife, harem, whatever and sucks face slowly and lovingly with them before the start of each session and gives the psychoconservative scum the finger.

1   Ceffer   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 11, 7:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

At last, live lesbian sex acts on the Senate floor with drunken Senators wearing togas!

It's like Animal House with keggers of bourbon!

3   someone else   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 7:55am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

She's was one of the 133 / 435 = 31% of House members who voted against the invasion of Iraq. Also seems to have voted against the ironically-named "Patriot" Act, which attempts to turn America into a police state. OTOH, she doesn't seem to see the inequality inherent in calling certain crimes "hate crimes" because a member of some favored group was attacked.

http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Tammy_Baldwin.htm

Overall, I think I like her.

4   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (41)   2012 Nov 11, 8:06am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Better.

She will make the psychoconservatives skin fucking crawl.

I hope she grabs her crotch, screams "PEACE, PROSPERITY AND PUSSY FOR ALL!" and gives those fuckers the finger every time goes to her bench in the Senate.

5   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 11, 8:13am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

She's was one of the 133 / 435 = 31% House members who voted against the invasion of Iraq. Also seems to have voted against the ironically-named "Patriot" Act, which attempts to turn America into a police state. OTOH, she doesn't seem to see the inequality inherent in calling certain crimes "hate crimes" because a member of some favored group was attacked.

http://www.ontheissues.org/house/Tammy_Baldwin.htm

Overall, I think I like her.

Yep - a true patriot.

6   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 8:19am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        


the inequality inherent in calling certain crimes "hate crimes" because a member of some favored group was attacked.

Again, it's not about the victim, it's about the motive (which has always been part of criminal law, e.g. the difference between murder and manslaughter comes down to intent). SCOTUS upheld a "hate crimes" law in a case where a group of black guys attacked a white kid simply because he was white. The perpetrators were angry because they had seen a movie about slavery or something, and decided to wreak vengeance like the Muslims demanding vengeance for a video they saw online. The law applies equally to everyone, prohibiting violent crime against anyone regardless of group membership. The legislation can help especially in places where misguided fools think they're "doing good" by assaulting others.

I liked the rest of your comment but had to respond to the part where you seemed to misunderstand the purpose and effect of legislation "hate crimes," i.e. violent crimes motivated by divide-and-misrule vengeance.

7   someone else   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 8:27am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I just don't see why murder is any worse if someone is murdered because you don't like his race, religion, or whatever, relative to a murder because you just don't like someone personally, or because you're just having a really bad day and want to take it out on a bystander.

The guy is still dead. The murder was the crime. The motive was not the crime.

In fact, I think it's counterproductive to increase a penalty because of a difference between attacker and victim. It spotlights and stresses the differences between citizens, and deliberately inflames it. The goal should be to ensure equality of justice for all citizens, just because they are citizens.

8   someone else   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 8:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

From your own comment in another thread:

At their trial, they invoked the "gay panic" defense, claiming he had made a sexual advance towards one of them, and somehow they all flew into a panic of standing their ground. (I don't know if he was even gay or not, but they claimed he was.) The jurors prayed, then acquitted.

The problem there was exactly and only that there was not equality of justice for all citizens. The crime was no worse because the victim was possibly gay. The jurors simply failed to provide equality of justice.

9   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 8:31am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The cases usually involve assault, where the differences are easier to see. The motive of a hate crime is to attack not only the specific victim, but also a whole group of people, of whom the victim is seen merely as a token representative. An ordinary bar fight based on an argument can become an assault but has no wider consequences. Targeted hate crimes, especially a series of them, tend to do much more damage to whole communities, e.g. the Muslim attacks on Christians in Indonesia or the genocidal violence in the former Yugoslavia. The guy I always think of is the Texan who thought he was cleaning up his neighborhood by beating up "a damned queer" (who turned out to be an undercover cop on a sting, the police were reportedly amazed at how fast they got assaulted). The Hatfields and the McCoys also come to mind; once people start killing each other for group membership, the violence can continue for generations.

10   Ceffer   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 11, 8:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

APOCALYPSEFUCK is Shostakovich says

Better.

She will make the psychoconservatives skin fucking crawl.

I hope she grabs her crotch, screams "PEACE, PROSPERITY AND PUSSY FOR ALL!" and gives those fuckers the finger every time goes to her bench in the Senate.

Maybe she will "scissor them to fruition", in exchange for votes, just like Sarah Silverman and her chihuahua!

11   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 11, 8:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        


I just don't see why murder is any worse if someone is murdered because you don't like his race, religion, or whatever, relative to a murder because you just don't like someone personally, or because you're just having a really bad day and want to take it out on a bystander.

The guy is still dead. The murder was the crime, not the motive.

In fact, I think it's counterproductive to increase a penalty because of a difference between attacker and victim. It spotlights and stresses the differences between citizens, and deliberately inflames it. The goal should be to ensure equality of justice for all citizens, just because they are citizens.

Yeah, I agree with this as well - I find the invention of "hate crimes" counterproductive. They exist in other countries as well and the US seems to have a history of defining "good murder" and "bad murder" like "good debt" and "bad debt", e.g. the laws in Texas that you can shoot a cheating spouse (don't think those are in effect anymore).

12   resistance   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 8:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

Targeted hate crimes, especially a series of them, tend to do much more damage to whole communities, e.g. the Muslim attacks on Christians in Indonesia or the genocidal violence in the former Yugoslavia.

That's why it is absolutely essential to peace to show that the government will prosecute the crime in exactly the same way no matter who the victim is.

If you want to damage the whole community, then start making distinctions between crimes against a member of certain specific groups. Hate crime laws may be well-intentioned, but they are counterproductive. To keep a community together, be zealous about never playing favorites.

It's similar to laws against Holocaust denial. They directly violate freedom of speech and convince the deniers that they must be right.

13   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 8:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Anyway I like Tammy Baldwin's opposition to the Iraq War and the badly misnamed "Patriot Act" (there ought to be a prohibition against any legislation with a name like that), but I disagree with her support for Obamacare. So I guess she and other Democrats did put together a winning platform, most people found enough to agree with Democrats about, unlike Republicans.

14   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 8:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        


If you want to damage the whole community, then start making distinctions between crimes against a member of certain specific groups.

Again, the distinction is the perpetrator's motive, not whether the victim is a member of a particular group. For example, frequently the victims of anti-gay assaults are not even gay. Usually the victims of anti-black assaults are black, but that isn't the point, race-based assaults get prosecuted equally when the victim is white.

15   someone else   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 8:45am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

OK, we agree she's likeable. Or for Apocalypsefuck, lickable.

16   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 11, 9:02am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

If you want to damage the whole community, then start making distinctions between crimes against a member of certain specific groups.

Again, the distinction is the perpetrator's motive, not whether the victim is a member of a particular group. For example, frequently the victims of anti-gay assaults are not even gay. Usually the victims of anti-black assaults are black, but that isn't the point, race-based assaults get prosecuted equally when the victim is white.

No they don't, most countries that have the "hate-crime" distinction enforce it unilaterally only, i.e. when the minority attacks the majority it is a regular crime, when the majority attacks the minority it is (often automatically) a hate crime. That's why they should get rid of such nonsense.

17   lostand confused   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 9:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says

At last, live lesbian sex acts on the Senate floor with drunken Senators wearing togas!


It's like Animal House with keggers of bourbon!

Eeeww. I almost threw up. Drunk Mitch McConnell, Harry Reid, John McCain et al in togas ??!!

18   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 11:49am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says

No they don't, most countries that have....

You didn't provide any examples and I don't have sufficient data to address what "most countries" have, but in this country "hate crimes" laws apply equally regardless of who the victim is. The separate Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was declared partly unconstitutional by the Supreme Court; efforts to amend VAWA to address domestic violence, without regard to whether the parties are male or female, have been blocked by Republicans. In fairness to Republicans, it should be acknowledged that violent crimes are almost never federal, everything from assault to murder is usually a state crime. States have broader power, subject only to certain federal guarantees - like the equal protection of the laws, which is why hate crimes laws apply equally regardless of who the victim is. The contrary has been a Faux News opinion talking point, part of the divide-and-misrule misinformation campaign, and is not even part of their actual news broadcast (i.e., even Fox doesn't present the claim as fact, only opinion).

19   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 11, 1:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

The contrary has been a Faux News opinion talking point, part of the divide-and-misrule misinformation campaign,

Nobody disputes or misrepresents the wording of that law (maybe Fox does, I don't). The problem is that a prosecutor has to actively "see" the intent and act on it, which is a very subjective matter. It's not worth going into details as these cases have discussed times and times again, e.g. the George Zimmerman case and the following racially charged "revenge" assaults. You can look at Germany where similar laws are even more selectively applied (due to extreme sensitivity to racial/cultural crimes following WW2). IMO these laws can (and do) cause more injustice than they could ever fix.

20   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 11, 3:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says

The problem is that a prosecutor has to actively "see" the intent and act on it, which is a very subjective matter.

I don't understand why people raise that objection in this context without addressing the fact that intent has been an element of criminal law for literally thousands of years. In every case of murder that has ever been prosecuted in this country, intent was an element, because otherwise the lesser charge of manslaughter would obtain. Likewise every case of larceny that has ever been prosecuted in this country depended on intent. There are few if any criminal cases that don't depend on intent.

mell says

You can look at Germany where similar laws are even more selectively applied....

I am guessing you are referring to German laws against Nazism. We have nothing similar here. In America, Nazis have a Constitutional right to express their opinions and assemble, and they march publicly, for example in Skokie.

People believe false rumors, urban legends, and other myths because they've heard them enough times from enough sources. But hearing about Bigfoot and Santa and the Loch Ness Monster doesn't make them real.

21   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 12, 12:03am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

I don't understand why people raise that objection in this context without addressing the fact that intent has been an element of criminal law for literally thousands of years. In every case of murder that has ever been prosecuted in this country, intent was an element, because otherwise the lesser charge of manslaughter would obtain.

The intent of premeditation is much much easier to infer and objectify than the intent of a hate-crime. But you have a point here and that's why I would also group murder together with killing out of spontaneous negative feelings/emotions to make it even more objective. I would only distinguish between murdering/killing somebody vs accidentally (real accident, not an "anger" accident) killing somebody. It doesn't make a difference to the outcome if you kill somebody because you hate their ilk, hate them personally and premeditated it or if you kill them because you are in rage due to an argument you had. And I'd argue it is equally wrong.

22   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 12, 4:16am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says

The intent of premeditation is much much easier to infer and objectify than the intent of a hate-crime.

Actually the opposite is more often the case. Perpetrators of "hate crimes" often like to brag about what they're doing and why. For example, last year in Mississippi, a white teen claimed that his wallet had been stolen by a black guy. (As far as I know, he never went to police about that, and we have no way of knowing if the teen ever had a wallet stolen.) He organized some of his friends (also white teens) to get revenge by driving to a black neighborhood to assault a random black guy, whom they ended up killing. Every element of the case was proved beyond a reasonable doubt by text messages, mobile phone records, video cameras, and confessions.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57401922-504083/deryl-dedmon-white-teen-pleads-guilty-to-miss-hate-crime-murder-of-james-anderson/
The teens had never seen the guy before the night they killed him, he had never done anything to them.

Likewise my favorite example, the Texan who assaulted an undercover cop, then demanded to know why he was being arrested. Upon being informed that he had assaulted a police officer, the Texan replied, "Well I apologize for that, I thought he was a damn queer." The police were responding to reports of anti-gay assaults, and were amazed at how fast they got assaulted when they simply walked along the sidewalk in the target neighborhood.

Just the fact that you can reason and type puts you way above the guys (and it's almost always males, though sometimes trying to impress females by seeming tough) who perpetrate these crimes. Possibly the most neutral example from American history is the Hatfields and the McCoys, but similar revenge violence plagued Sicily for centuries and of course there were the Troubles in Ireland, and the terrible bloodshed between Hindus and Muslims in India. Criminal law is not generally about the victim, it's about the public; the case is brought not by the victim but by "the People" of the state or the United States. Attempts to ignite the sort of group dynamic that did so much damage to those places and times are, intrinsically, much more dangerous to the public than a random bar fight between two idiots arguing about a baseball team.

23   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 12, 5:43am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

For example, last year in Mississippi, a white teen claimed that his wallet had been stolen by a black guy. (

These cases are rare exceptions (hence newsworthy) in between all the "potential" cases and yet they should be treated as simple murder. Again, by your reasoning they should have booked all the black-on-white assaulters after the Zimmerman crap and most of the outraged masses after the Rodney King verdict on charges of hate crimes. Again, this stuff is never enforced bilaterally, you are veering a bit off-topic here. Why not just book everybody for murder, cause that's what it is. Also I'd argue that two idiots arguing at a baseball team are much more dangerous statistically as these incidents and idiots are way more prevalent in society.

24   curious2   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 12, 5:52am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says

this stuff is never enforced bilaterally, you are veering a bit off-topic here. Why not just book everybody for murder....

It is enforced bilaterally, but you are right that it's off topic. I addressed your question previously in a different thread, (The legislation can help especially in places where misguided fools think they're "doing good" by assaulting others.), but neither of us is going to persuade the other.

25   mell   ignore (2)   2012 Nov 12, 5:56am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

curious2 says

mell says

this stuff is never enforced bilaterally, you are veering a bit off-topic here. Why not just book everybody for murder....

It is enforced bilaterally, as I've pointed out repeatedly, but you are right that it's off topic. I addressed your question previously in a different thread, link above, but neither of us is going to persuade the other.

Fair enough - I'd still support Tammy, given her record, and AF for a 4 year term of cannibal anarchy ;)

26   marcus   ignore (10)   2012 Nov 12, 6:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Is AF a senator ?

27   bdrasin   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 12, 7:10am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Don't tell Apocolypsefuck about the new bisexual congresswoman from Arizona:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrsten_Sinema

I don't know anything about her, but she is easy on the eyes. Not that it matters, she wasn't running for 'Miss Universe'; I'm just sayin'

28   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (41)   2012 Nov 12, 8:17am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tammy on my face, Kysten on my schlong, each eating the other's face in the name of America!

This is what democracy is all the fuck about!

30   someone else   ignore (0)   2012 Nov 12, 8:39am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

bdrasin says

Don't tell Apocolypsefuck about the new bisexual congresswoman from Arizona:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrsten_Sinema

I don't know anything about her, but she is easy on the eyes. Not that it matters, she wasn't running for 'Miss Universe'; I'm just sayin'

Former Mormon as well. Maybe some pent-up tension there getting released now.

31   APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   ignore (41)   2012 Nov 12, 9:08am   ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Krysten is a monster. Up at dawn writhing in erotic hunger, shrieking me and Tammy's names, howling, 'fuck me to Kolob and back! Then we'll go garrote some fascists!'

She's what America is all about.


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions