patrick.net

Partial List of Democrat rapists, pedophiles and cheaters.

If we want to include all of the Liberal lobbyists and bundlers from Hollywood alone, the number will easily eclipse the list above.

- Anthony Weiner
- Eliot Spitzer (total hypocrite as he prosecuted others who engaged in prostitution)
- David Wu
- Kwame Fitzpatrick
- John Edwards
- Bill Clinton
- David Paterson
- Antonio Villaraigosa
- Marc Dann
- Paul Morrison
- Gary Condit
- Tim Mahoney
- Neil Goldschmidt (underage)
- Jim McGreevey
- Mel Reynolds (underage)
- Brock Adams (rape)
- Barney Frank (partner conducting gay prostitution ring in his house)
- Gary Hart
- Gerry Studs (underage dudes)
- Fred Richmond (underage dudes)
- Gavin Newsom
- Sam Adams (affair with 18 year old dude)

Dan, I think your list is a little dated. Mark Foley and his sexting of Congressional Pages, Larry Craig was arrested for Trolling (reduced to disorderly conduct) at the Airport.

Socal, 18 years is the age of majority everywhere; most of your additional Dems above engaged in standard heterosexual affairs.

Dan8267 says

As for murder, Nixon and Bush come to mind as the biggest mass murderers in American history.

Obama has Bush beat hands down. More Arabs, Christians, Yazidis and secularists have been killed in the Middle East in 6.5 years of Obama than 8 years of Bush.

EVERYONE told Obama what would happen if he pulled all troops out of Iraq. Let alone toppling Gadaffi without any plans to fill the void.

Obama knew the costs and even said in 2007 that preventing genocide is not a good enough reason to keep troops in Iraq.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/24/opinion/oe-goldberg24

I remember a lot of Kurds being massacred in the 80s, and Shi'ites in the 90s. Where was Regan, Bush, and the Republican Controlled Congress then?

thunderlips11 says

most of your additional Dems above engaged in standard heterosexual affairs.

That makes it OK then!

Republicans certainly aren't immune to sex scandals. But we don't elevate our scumbags to the highest offices of the Presidency like they did with JFK and Clinton. Shit they even ran John Edwards in 2004!

thunderlips11 says

I remember a lot of Kurds being massacred in the 80s, and Shi'ites in the 90s. Where was Regan, Bush, and the Republican Controlled Congress then?

Republicans didn't control Congress until 1994.

Besides, there were bigger concerns during the Cold War and couldn't right every wrong at once. Just like we looked past Stalin and the Communist atrocities to ally with them against the bigger perceived threat of the Nazis and Japanese during WWII.

Face it, Bush handed Obama a much more stable and hopeful Middle East than Obama is going to hand to his successor. Most of the hard work was already done. Obama just had to consolidate the gains and not fuck it up.

socal2 says

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean it is preferable.

You mean like go to war on false pretense, engage in slavery, gerrymander voting districts, cut social safety nets, pollute the Earth, go to church, and discriminate against arbitrary groups? Yes, I totally agree that just because you can do something does not mean you should. However, there is no legal reason to discriminate against same-sex marriage. None.

socal2 says

Like I keep asking and you are too chicken to answer

Honey, I'm not chicken of anything you have to say. I may be so repulsed by your writings I skim through them so that I don't throw up, but don't think for a second there is anything you impotent mind can possible think of that would even slightly challenge me. You're just too damn stupid to be a worthy opponent.

socal2 says

should the State adopt children to a gay or straight couple if all things are equal between the two couples

If all things are equal, then by definition, there is no advantage to having either couple adopt the child. But last I checked, there's no shortage of children that need adopting.

More than 250,000 children in the U.S. enter the foster care system every year. While more than half of these children will return to their parents, the remainder will stay in the system. Most of these children are living with foster families, but some also live in group facilities.

Each year more than 20,000 children age out of the foster care without being adopted. Today there are 102,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted ranging in age from less than a year old to 21.

Now if you're asking are there any disadvantages to having two fathers (or mothers) as oppose to one parent of each gender, the answer is yes, but those disadvantages are utterly insignificant and pale in contrast to other factors. It's nice to have parents of both gender so that you potentially have a role model from each. Sons can ask their dads questions they wouldn't ask their mom, and daughters probably don't want to talk about periods with their dads. However, these challenges can be easily and trivially met by having an aunt or uncle or grandparent or even close friend who's the opposite gender of the parents. Jane can ask Aunt Rosie about periods instead of her two dads. Problem solved easily.

Now there are far more important factors that come into play with adoption. A child is way better off with wealthy parents than poorer ones. Well guess what, both gay and lesbian couples make more money than their straight counterparts. That means, on average, children are much better off with gay parents than straight one. Game, set, match, bitch.

If you honestly believed that the best interests of the child is what should determine who can adopt, then given this information, you would have to oppose straight adoption. The fact that you won't change your mind to this is indisputable proof that you are simply a hypocritical bigot who doesn't give a rat's ass about the children and is only using them as political cannon fodder.

Oh, and this data comes from Experian, one of the companies that does credit reporting. They only care about one thing: money.

Side note: I'm actually surprised that lesbian couples earn more than straight couples. I thought that women would choose to go into less paying jobs compared to men and so the wealth order would be gay male couples, straight couples, lesbian couples. But I was wrong about that. I have no idea why lesbian couples make more than straight couples. It's a surprising result and warrants further investigation.

I do have one conjecture, and it's only a conjecture. Openly gay men and lesbians, the ones that would marry and adopt, tend to be liberal and we all know that smart people tend to be liberal. Smart people also tend to earn more. Perhaps this is the correlation.

socal2 says

Wasn't long ago when Progs were saying that "one loving mother with State assistance" is good enough to raise children without a father.

That doesn't sound like the kind of statement a progressive would make. And given your inability to distinguish between progressives, liberals, leftists, socialists, communists, and witches, I sincerely doubt you are right about this.

In any case, placing foster children in the hands of gay and lesbian couples will reduce childhood poverty and the need for state assistance. So again, should the "no spending on social services" conservatives embrace gay adoption then?

socal2 says

Now look at the dramatic increase in income inequality and destruction of the African American family with all these single mothers living on welfare and a life of poverty with no fathers around.

Nice job Progs! Let's keep tinkering with the very foundation of civilization, pretending there are no physical and psychological differences between the sexes and see how much more we can fuck things up and blame it on evil Corporations!

Oh honey, the reason why so many African American families are headed by just the mother is that because of conservative's War on Drugs far too many black men are in prison. And the reason for the War on Drugs is the greed of corporations like
- big pharma who doesn't want competition from patent-free drugs
- big alcohol who doesn't want competition from other drugs
- the police unions
- the prison guard unions
- private prisons corporations

And they are all motivated by personal greed.

The Top Five Special Interest Groups Lobbying To Keep Marijuana Illegal

So yes, the blame does go to evil corporations, or more precisely, to evil fuckers who run corporations because corporations themselves can't be good or evil as they are just pieces of paper.

Keep opening your mouth, socal2. I'd love more ammunition.

socal2 says

Partial List of Democrat rapists, pedophiles and cheaters.

I see yours is way smaller than mine.

thunderlips11 says

Dan, I think your list is a little dated.

Well come on man, the list grows every day. We'd need a real time RSS feed and gigabit throughput to keep it up to date!

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

As for murder, Nixon and Bush come to mind as the biggest mass murderers in American history.

Obama has Bush beat hands down.

Obama is simply the continuation of the Bush administration. And as vile as his crimes are, they would not have been possible if not for Bush. So no, you conservatives still look bad no matter what straws you grasp at.

And Obama is neither a liberal nor a leftist. He's to the right of Nixon.

socal2 says

Republicans certainly aren't immune to sex scandals. But we don't elevate our scumbags to the highest offices of the Presidency like they did with JFK and Clinton

You're comparing a consensual blow job to the mass amount of pedophile rape done by Republicans? Wow, you are morally bankrupt!

And America would be damn lucky to have Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy as president today. These are two of the most successful presidents in the past 100 years. No one is remembering either Bush, Ford, or Nixon in a positive light. And only batshit crazy conservatives get a hard-on for Reagan, the man most singularly responsible for the downfall of the middle class and the impoverishment of tens of millions of American families.

Dan8267 says

All that drama is created by conservative bigots. If our state simply treated homosexuals exactly the same as heterosexuals there would be no drama, no gay pride parades, no history of lynching gays, no history of imprisoning gays, and gay marriage would have been the law of the land since inception and no one would even be thinking of gay rights, gay marriage, or gay culture. It would be no big deal.

Dan, who is lynching anyone these days or putting anyone in prison for being gay? You are worse then the blacks who mentally stuck in 1861.

Marriage is about children, it's not about anyone anything. No one is preventing anyone from living together or getting a "union". Marriage however, is not something that is meant for homosexuals. Can't marry a horse just because you might like one, get over it Dan.

Dan8267 says

Now if you're asking are there any disadvantages to having two fathers (or mothers) as oppose to one parent of each gender, the answer is yes,

That wasn't so hard - was it?

Dan8267 says

You're comparing a consensual blow job to the mass amount of pedophile rape done by Republicans? Wow, you are morally bankrupt!

My partial list includes plenty of Democrat men diddling little boys.

Of course I didn't include the "Lion of the Democrat Party" Ted Kennedy leaving a woman in a ditch to die. That's a pretty high bar for any Republican to clear. His brother JFK wasn't much better.

Dan8267 says

And America would be damn lucky to have Bill Clinton or John F. Kennedy as president today. These are two of the most successful presidents in the past 100 years.

JFK was one of our best presidents in the past 100 years? The guy that got us into Vietnam? The guy that got rolled by Kruschev and nearly started WWIII? The guy that allowed mob prostitutes into the White House?

I think you still believing the Camelot myth. It's all style over substance with you Libs. That's what allowed you to vote for a guy like Obama with no experience.

anonymous says

So what exactly are those thinking people saying about themselves if they have to preface a statement with reassurance that they are not being bigoted? i.e. We can be tolerant of (fill in the blank) but still support, defend, whatever...

I dunno - how about you can love the sinner but hate the sin?

FortWayne says

Dan, who is lynching anyone these days or putting anyone in prison for being gay?

Honey, you don't get to discard all of history simply because we liberals stopped you conservatives from committing your crimes. If conservatives had their way, lynchings and slavery would be practiced again.

You conservatives have yet to condemn your ancestors for their vile and evil ways.

FortWayne says

Marriage is about children, it's not about anyone anything.

Bullshit. Elderly couples get married long after child bearing years. Infertile people get married. People who don't want to have children get married. Are you saying that those three groups should be denied the right to marry? Well?

anonymous says

Better go back to the early 1950s for the real roots of Vietnam

Democrats always blaming war failures on Republicans. "It wasn't JFK or LBJ that got all those US service men killed in Vietnam. It was Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford!"

socal2 says

That wasn't so hard - was it?

Like your penis, no. And as I stated in my detailed response, weighing the advantages against the disadvantages, gay men and lesbians come out ahead as parents. You can't refute that.

Dan8267 says

If you honestly believed that the best interests of the child is what should determine who can adopt, then given this information, you would have to oppose straight adoption. The fact that you won't change your mind to this is indisputable proof that you are simply a hypocritical bigot who doesn't give a rat's ass about the children and is only using them as political cannon fodder.

So, chicken, are you now going to admit that overall children are better off with gay and lesbian parents? Or is that too hard?

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Elderly couples get married long after child bearing years. Infertile people get married.

There are exceptions to everything.

But the vast majority of US marriages end up procreating. And that was even more the case before the proliferation of birth control and abortion.

Anyway, great jobs guys! Keep fucking around with basic civilization basics. "Married Couples Are No Longer a Majority, Census Finds"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/us/26marry.html?_r=0

And Progs wonder why there is growing income inequality!

Dan8267 says

You conservatives have yet to condemn your ancestors for their vile and evil ways.

Have you condemned your party's evil, vile and racist Eugenics past?

No - you made Margaret Sanger (who wanted less black, Italian and Jewish babies) a patron saint of your party and coveted abortion practice.

anonymous says

Bigger bullshit from here - my father and step mother got married for health insurance purposes, tax purposes and companionship when they were in their late 60s...

My co-worker's daughter who lives in Washington State won't marry the father of her child as they will lose welfare and other subsidies.

Just another fucked up liberal welfare policy that encourages destructive behavior.

socal2 says

My partial list includes plenty of Democrat men diddling little boys.

Four compare to over a hundred in my list. Almost everyone in the list I quoted is a pedophile. You're proving my point.

Oh, and my list is certainly partial as well. So don't bother to exaggerate the size of yours. We all know it's damn small compared to mine.

socal2 says

JFK was one of our best presidents in the past 100 years? The guy that got us into Vietnam?

Yes, despite that and other mistakes like the Bay of Pigs invasion, Kennedy was still vastly superior to any post-Southern-Strategy Republican.

Oh, and don't pretend that the Republicans didn't have a hard on for Vietnam. Nixon's actions during the war was a crime against humanity, and he used American soldiers as cannon fodder.

anonymous says

Dan8267 says

Marriage is about children, it's not about anyone anything.

That was Fort Wayne, not me.

Disclosure. Upon reading carefully through the long list I've quoted above, it's important to point out that the list, copied from here, has a bunch of duplicates like Beverly Russell listed three times. I'm too lazy and too busy to go through the list eliminating duplicates -- plus reading even partly through it is enough to make one puke with disgust at the rape of 5, 8, 9, and 10-year-olds.

However, if any other honest person is willing to go through the list and eliminate dups, you have my gratitude.

Dan8267 says

You conservatives have yet to condemn your ancestors for their vile and evil ways.

Why would I waste time condemning anything in the past? It's how society was back then, you'd be doing same thing if you were living in their generation. You'll understand that once you grow up Dan.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Elderly couples get married long after child bearing years. Infertile people get married. People who don't want to have children get married. Are you saying that those three groups should be denied the right to marry? Well?

They can marry, for bible does not make marriage explicitly for having children. Here is the definition Dan. Marriage is a lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. It is ok to not have children as long as reason is purposeful, not sin. However homosexuality is deviant, shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent and hence not right for marriage, it would destroy the very pillars on which our society is built upon.

anonymous says

FortWayne - Pondering your view on what happens when said marriage does not provide a stable environment for that family? As well, when straight couples engage in deviant, shameful, unnatural, lustful and indecent behavior - then what ? Doesn't this also destroy the very pillars on which society is built upon?

Yes it does.

So where does caitlyn fit into all this hell?

FortWayne says

No one is preventing anyone from living together or getting a "union". Marriage however, is not something that is meant for homosexuals.

FortWayne says

unnatural,

No matter how many examples people cite from nature, Forthood keeps flagellating himself with that lie, all the way to his Reseda rest room rendezvous with Larry Craig.

anonymous says

Gotta give you credit for

No, you really don't, and shouldn't. It isn't even a belief, it's a compulsive lie on his part. He knows full well for example that Ronald Reagan entrusted his own kids and home to a lesbian couple, and invited a gay male couple to stay in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House; I pointed that out to him, with links, so he Ignored me. Forthood doesn't deserve credit for repeating a disproved lie, and besides he doesn't even believe it; he's merely too invested now, so he needs to see his "Brokeback" lie all the way through and subvert his self-loathing into persecution a la Larry Craig and Mark Foley and Dennis Hastert and countless others before him. People who deserve credit are people like Dan, who if you point out an actual error and prove it, acknowledges it and doesn't repeat the same error.

http://patrick.net/misc/It+is+especially+inhumane+to+deceive+youth

FortWayne says

Why would I waste time condemning anything in the past?

...to not repeat the mistakes of history.

Why do you conservatives waste time glorifying your abysmal past?

FortWayne says

They can marry, for bible does not make marriage explicitly for having children. Here is the definition Dan. Marriage is a lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family. I

You are contradicting yourself. None of the groups I mentioned get marry at all, nonetheless primarily, for the purpose of building a family. Furthermore, through adoption, gay and lesbian couples can and do build families, and they do society a great service by adopting.

FortWayne says

. It is ok to not have children as long as reason is purposeful, not sin.

There is no such thing as sin as your god is false. The fact that your false religion influences our laws in any way is justification to make your false religion illegal. Why should I tolerate any religion that is not tolerant of those who aren't believers of its lies?

As for evil, there is no evil in same-sex marriages or adoption. There is, however, great evil in the oppression of any arbitrary group and the prevention of responsible adults in adopting children who are wards of the state.

And even without the desire to adopt children, same-sex relationships are most certainly purposeful. To argue that spending one's life with someone you love is not purposeful simply because you have matching genitals is utterly ridiculous.

FortWayne says

However homosexuality is deviant, shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent and hence not right for marriage

This is simply your unfounded bigotry and has no basis in history, science, or reality. Oh, and there is nothing wrong with lust either.

As for unnatural, homosexuality is abundant in nature. You can't even get basic facts correct.

FortWayne says

it would destroy the very pillars on which our society is built upon

Exactly how much homosexuality is necessary to "destroy the very pillars on which our society is built upon"? How many states have to recognize same sex marriages for that to happen? What if a Constitutional amendment were passed to recognize same-sex marriages on the federal level? Would that be enough to destroy those pillars of society? And exactly what is going to happen when those pillars are destroyed?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/i2gVXd7FzhQ

The near future is going to show how batshit crazy your perception of the world is. Marriage equality will become the law of the land and society will continue better than it is now because things are getting better. And when people look back fifty years from now at your comments, they will sound as stupid as the comments fifty years ago saying that race mixing would destroy society. Hell, make that ten years.

curious2 says

FortWayne says

unnatural,

No matter how many examples people cite from nature, Forthood keeps flagellating himself with that lie

This is exactly why people who are members of any religion should not be allowed to vote. We don't let the insane vote because they are mentally incapable of weighing important decisions. If someone talks to an imaginary voice and has severe delusions about reality, that person cannot make a rational decision in an election or referendum. Religion is one of the worst forms of mental illness no matter how socially acceptable or pervasive it is. If there is any form of mental illness that should prevent a person from voting, it's being religious as FortWayne demonstrates.

Dan8267 says

Now if you're asking are there any disadvantages to having two fathers (or mothers) as oppose to one parent of each gender, the answer is yes, but those disadvantages are utterly insignificant and pale in contrast to other factors. It's nice to have parents of both gender so that you potentially have a role model from each. Sons can ask their dads questions they wouldn't ask their mom, and daughters probably don't want to talk about periods with their dads. However, these challenges can be easily and trivially met by having an aunt or uncle or grandparent or even close friend who's the opposite gender of the parents. Jane can ask Aunt Rosie about periods instead of her two dads. Problem solved easily.

Nice.

Dan8267 says

Now there are far more important factors that come into play with adoption. A child is way better off with wealthy parents than poorer ones. Well guess what, both gay and lesbian couples make more money than their straight counterparts. That means, on average, children are much better off with gay parents than straight one.

Nice.

Dan8267 says

Oh honey, the reason why so many African American families are headed by just the mother is that because of conservative's War on Drugs far too many black men are in prison. And the reason for the War on Drugs is the greed of corporations like

- big pharma who doesn't want competition from patent-free drugs

- big alcohol who doesn't want competition from other drugs

- the police unions

- the prison guard unions

- private prisons corporations

And they are all motivated by personal greed.

Not nice. Silly.

Dan8267 says

This is exactly why people who are members of any religion should not be allowed to vote. We don't let the insane vote because they are mentally incapable of weighing important decisions. If someone talks to an imaginary voice and has severe delusions about reality, that person cannot make a rational decision in an election or referendum. Religion is one of the worst forms of mental illness no matter how socially acceptable or pervasive it is. If there is any form of mental illness that should prevent a person from voting, it's being religious

You are awesome. :)

Strategist says

Not nice. Silly.

It may not be "nice", but it's a fact. The evidence speaks for itself.

http://www.thenation.com/article/180493/anti-pot-lobbys-big-bankroll
http://www.businessinsider.com/police-unions-and-pharmaceutical-companies-fund-anti-marijuana-fight-2014-7
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/12/08/pot-legalization-opponents-aim-to-protect-their-bottom-line
http://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-legalization-pharmaceuticals-alcohol-industry-among-biggest-opponents-legal-weed-1651166

Need more?

socal2 says

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. Elderly couples get married long after child bearing years. Infertile people get married.

There are exceptions to everything.

These aren't "exceptions", and even if they were, wouldn't same sex marriages also be?

The fact is the law of the land allows for couples with no desire or capacity to have children to still get married. That's indisputable proof that having children is neither the primary nor the sole purpose of marriage under law. And things like the tax code, health benefits, survivor benefits, and tens of thousands of other rights are not predicated on having children.

socal2 says

Have you condemned your party's evil, vile and racist Eugenics past?

I don't have a party. In this country, you simply vote for the lesser of two evils, and today the Republican Party is the greater of the two evils by far.

In any case, it was the Dixiecrats, who became Republicans after the Southern Strategy was implemented, that practiced Eugenics. It's funny how every time Republicans talk about some evil thing in the past of the Democratic Party, they are really talking about their own past. They are literally blaming the other side for the actions of conservative scum who switched parties in the 1950s and early 1960s.

Strom Thurmond wore a donkey in the 1950s and an elephant in the 1970s, but he didn't changed. The parties did. Thurmond was a racist, pedophile rapist scumbag his entire life. The only thing the Southern Strategy changed was the pin on his lapel.

Dan8267 says

There is no such thing as sin as your god is false

There is such a thing as "sin". For if it wasn't, it wouldn't be against a law, and some things no law can prevent without folks simply choosing to do the right thing. This is where your childishness really shines Dan, you really don't get it.