Democrats hire rapists to go door-to-door

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

Mike all I did was ask you to point something out to me, how does that become an issue of democratic or republican?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So then, let's look at the law.

Alright then, fair enough. I still maintain that we don't even know if there was any sex crimes involved in that situation, but anyway.

 

It's not that I think it's not a bad idea if people endanger children and that others should do it, what I'm trying to say is just because made a bad idea and raped someone 20 years ago, doesn't make them incapable of handling information or money. Of course I have a lot less inherant tolerance for someone who raped someone underage if they're more than a few years older than the other person, we all do.

 

Still doesn't change much in the effect that ex-cons have been doing similar work for a long time, and nobody cared because there was no politics involved.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Completely irrelevant. ACT hired them. It doesn't matter WHO in ACT hired them. They did it out of laziness.

Oh yes it fucking does. What the hell happened to personal responsibility? I'll throw your question back at you, what if it was a conservative 527 that did this?

 

You don't want to blame the individual, you'd rather blame the group and then just tell us that they're very, very, very close to the Kerry campaign without any real anecdotal evidence on that one. This way we can bring the thread closer to saying that John Kerry Supports Grandma-rapists, which is what the goal has been since page one.

[Dangerous A 0]

I agree with Jingus in that this is someone in middle management/ACT head person's fault. However I see Marney's point in that Kerry needs to disavow himself from this group now that they have fucked up since they are doing work in his name and to stop turning a blind eye.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike all I did was ask you to point something out to me, how does that become an issue of democratic or republican?

Care to guess which party ACT is backing 100%?

Oh yes it fucking does. What the hell happened to personal responsibility? I'll throw your question back at you, what if it was a conservative 527 that did this?

I'd rip them a new one and demand that Bush distance himself from them.

 

Of course, I likely wouldn't need to make that demand.

You don't want to blame the individual, you'd rather blame the group and then just tell us that they're very, very, very close to the Kerry campaign without any real anecdotal evidence on that one. This way we can bring the thread closer to saying that John Kerry Supports Grandma-rapists, which is what the goal has been since page one.

You BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO EMPLOYED THEM, YOU SIMPERING PUTZ.

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

I haven't heard "simpering" in a while.

[Guest MikeSC]

I haven't heard "simpering" in a while.

Been free of dates for a while, have ye?

-=Mike

[Art Sandusky 0]

... what?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Hey now......

 

not the man's fault that all the restraining orders had him moved back another 100 yrds.

[Guest MikeSC]

Hey now......

 

not the man's fault that all the restraining orders had him moved back another 100 yrds.

Hell, much more and he'll have to move elsewhere.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Should I feel dirty for agreeing with Mike to a degree?

 

An entire group of people within ACT failed the organization by not performing their jobs; namely, performing thorough background checks upon their newest volunteers/employees, whatever you want to call them this week. This is an example of how not to do your job if you are affiliated to someone or something politically. Individual responsibility is important here; they have not only tarnished their own names, but those of the organization and its leaders.

 

Here's where it stops: just because ACT POSSIBLY backs the Kerry campaign, it does NOT mean that you can place the blame at the feet of the Kerry campaign. It lies upon ACT and its employees, those who did not perform their jobs to the point that they should have. ACT has earned its fall, but logically, how is Kerry at fault here?

[Guest MikeSC]

Should I feel dirty for agreeing with Mike to a degree?

 

An entire group of people within ACT failed the organization by not performing their jobs; namely, performing thorough background checks upon their newest volunteers/employees, whatever you want to call them this week. This is an example of how not to do your job if you are affiliated to someone or something politically. Individual responsibility is important here; they have not only tarnished their own names, but those of the organization and its leaders.

 

Here's where it stops: just because ACT POSSIBLY backs the Kerry campaign, it does NOT mean that you can place the blame at the feet of the Kerry campaign. It lies upon ACT and its employees, those who did not perform their jobs to the point that they should have. ACT has earned its fall, but logically, how is Kerry at fault here?

Who's blaming Kerry specifically? The blame he and the Democrats share is that they have YET to distance themselves from this group.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

I don't see the need to distance themselves, at least on Kerry's side of the table, if they have never been linked specifically.

 

-=Ryan

...hey, I thought it looked cool, so I decided to try it out...

[Guest MikeSC]

I don't see the need to distance themselves, at least on Kerry's side of the table, if they have never been linked specifically.

 

-=Ryan

...hey, I thought it looked cool, so I decided to try it out...

Ryan, they are campaigning FOR Kerry and the Democrats. Kerry is QUITE aware of their support as an ACT member has recently been hired to run Kerry's NB office.

 

Honestly, the incestuous relationship between the DNC and the 527's could end up winning a reporter a Pulitzer should they ever decide to investigate it. It looks VERY shady.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

So then, let's look at the law.

Alright then, fair enough. I still maintain that we don't even know if there was any sex crimes involved in that situation, but anyway.

 

It's not that I think it's not a bad idea if people endanger children and that others should do it, what I'm trying to say is just because made a bad idea and raped someone 20 years ago, doesn't make them incapable of handling information or money. Of course I have a lot less inherant tolerance for someone who raped someone underage if they're more than a few years older than the other person, we all do.

 

Still doesn't change much in the effect that ex-cons have been doing similar work for a long time, and nobody cared because there was no politics involved.

Jobber, do us all a favor, and just admit that someone in ACT, someone in that organization fucked up ROYALLY.

 

Their OWN policy stated that they wouldn't hire someone who had been convicted of violent or serious crimes, and what happens? An investigations shows that they in fact DID hire people who had been convicted of Assault and sex offenses.

 

Now, even assuming that you feel that even those people should be given a second chance, let me ask you this - do you think it's wise to take felons, who were convicted of violent crimes as well as sex offenses, and send them DOOR TO DOOR?!?! Would you like a sex offender - ANY degree of offender, it doesn't even have to be rape or child molestation, it could be simply a guy who was a peeping tom - would you want them sent out into YOUR neighborhood? If you WERE going to give them a second chance, then stick them at a desk somewhere back at the office. Let them answer phones. Don't put them out there on the street.

 

Notice that I have not, even once in this entire thread, blamed this on Kerry. But I'm saying that someone in ACT fucked up incredibly. Someone there deserves a hell of a lot of blame. Are you willing to at least capitulate and agree at least in THAT regard, or are you going to continue to defend them simply because they're an organization which, generally, plays to your political interests?

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

I think he jumped past that point because it was getting spinned into John Kerry going to jails and hiring rapists and murderers to do door-door, which is so outlandish you feel the need to defend it no matter where your standing.

 

But I don't see how this is a "major" fuck up considering no one was hurt and the problem was fixed before it was really a problem. Using what if's that are no longer plausable as the basis for why it's so major don't really make the case.

 

Someone fucked up on the job, no one was hurt or killed and no irrepairable damage was done. When that happens daily I don't see why it becomes a hot current discussion simply because of the names or parties attached.

 

And I think we can all agree that the title of the topic was clearly reaching and just being sensational, and that can be blamed for a lot of the regressive back and foth.

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Come on, we love the partisan bickering. It's what makes this folder fun.

 

Someones earned their respective firing, their hell, whatever, for not doing their job. If we want to make this really fun, let's look at 527s and their possible relations to each major parties. It'll be a ball.

[Vyce 0]

I think he jumped past that point because it was getting spinned into John Kerry going to jails and hiring rapists and murderers to do door-door, which is so outlandish you feel the need to defend it no matter where your standing.

 

But I don't see how this is a "major" fuck up considering no one was hurt and the problem was fixed before it was really a problem. Using what if's that are no longer plausable as the basis for why it's so major don't really make the case.

 

Someone fucked up on the job, no one was hurt or killed and no irrepairable damage was done. When that happens daily I don't see why it becomes a hot current discussion simply because of the names or parties attached.

 

And I think we can all agree that the title of the topic was clearly reaching and just being sensational, and that can be blamed for a lot of the regressive back and foth.

You are out of your FUCKING mind.

 

"Well, they DID hire a sex offender, but it's okay, cause it doesn't seem as if they really raped or molested anyone."

 

OUT of your fucking mind.

 

Someones earned their respective firing, their hell, whatever, for not doing their job. If we want to make this really fun, let's look at 527s and their possible relations to each major parties. It'll be a ball.

 

I wish we would. Mike already started another discussion about it yesterday, but no one's been replying to it, and sadly, NO ONE in the media even cares about how suspicious it looks that guys from the 527s somehow keep getting jobs within Kerry's campaign.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

Where did I say it was okay?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Come on, we love the partisan bickering. It's what makes this folder fun.

Wow, you have changed quite a bit after only 264 posts...

[Guest MikeSC]

Someones earned their respective firing, their hell, whatever, for not doing their job. If we want to make this really fun, let's look at 527s and their possible relations to each major parties. It'll be a ball.

 

I wish we would. Mike already started another discussion about it yesterday, but no one's been replying to it, and sadly, NO ONE in the media even cares about how suspicious it looks that guys from the 527s somehow keep getting jobs within Kerry's campaign.

That's just crazy talk.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO EMPLOYED THEM, YOU SIMPERING PUTZ.

                    -=Mike

There was rules against it.

 

An employee (singular or plural) broke the rules.

 

Why the hell not blame whoever it was that broke their own stated rules?

[Guest MikeSC]

You BLAME THE PEOPLE WHO EMPLOYED THEM, YOU SIMPERING PUTZ.

                    -=Mike

There was rules against it.

 

An employee broke the rules.

 

Why the hell not blame whoever it was that broke their own stated rules?

So, to answer Vyce's question, no, you won't admit that ACT fucked up royally.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Jobber, do us all a favor, and just admit that someone in ACT, someone in that organization fucked up ROYALLY.

Vyce, this is where I'm getting.

 

I do not agree with you that people should be barred from certain jobs after they've done their time. But, ACT's hiring process said some of these people shouldn't have been hired. I'm now trying to figure out why Mike wants to bitch about all of ACT like they endorsed it and not simply say they should kick out whoever broke the rules, which to me is a logical method of reaction.

 

My suspicion is that the reason Mike wants to call everyone in ACT a sick asshole, instead of whoever broke the rules, is because of the political connection. And if he's going to do that, he could at least be open about it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Jobber, do us all a favor, and just admit that someone in ACT, someone in that organization fucked up ROYALLY.

Vyce, this is where I'm getting.

 

I do not agree with you that people should be barred from certain jobs after they've done their time. But, ACT's hiring process said some of these people shouldn't have been hired. I'm now trying to figure out why Mike wants to bitch about all of ACT like they endorsed it and not simply say they should kick out whoever broke the rules, which to me is a logical method of reaction.

 

My suspicion is that the reason Mike wants to call everyone in ACT a sick asshole, instead of whoever broke the rules, is because of the political connection. And if he's going to do that, he could at least be open about it.

So, rather than "fall into my trap", you're going to defend an organization that is too lazy to do proper background checks and that the state of MO will no longer allow to hire ex-cons?

 

Guess what --- it doesn't matter if ACT says they oppose it. THEY STILL DID IT. Barry Bonds claims he opposes steroid usage --- if he's found guilty, will you assume he's innocent because he says he opposes using them?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, rather than "fall into my trap", you're going to defend an organization that is too lazy to do proper background checks

No, I'm going to say that someone in the organization, as Vyce said, royally fucked it up.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, rather than "fall into my trap", you're going to defend an organization that is too lazy to do proper background checks

No, I'm going to say that someone in the organization, as Vyce said, royally fucked it up.

Wow.

 

Just wow.

 

So I suppose you'll never comment on Halliburton again, just focusing on individual members, huh? No more "Bush campaign" did this --- just the names of individual staffers, right?

-=Mike

[tommytomlin 0]

Weren't you arguing the same thing during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal Mike? That it was all about personal accountability?

[Guest MikeSC]

Weren't you arguing the same thing during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal Mike? That it was all about personal accountability?

Yup. And the US military only consists of several hundred thousand people and the guilty parties are presently being very much punished.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Come on, we love the partisan bickering. It's what makes this folder fun.

Wow, you have changed quite a bit after only 264 posts...

It was either that or get extremely frustrated...so when you can't beat 'em, fuck it hold hard to your beliefs, no matter how wrong they are.

 

Anyways: Mike brings up an interesting point when it comes to Halliburton and personal accountibility. Both sides are guilty of using illogical jumps in order to make their points. It is yet to be seen, though, just how far up the chain of command the Abu Ghraib situation did go.