The 2017 General Salma Hayek discussion thread...Part 3!!!

[SheepDog4Life]

One of the best Saturday Night Live routines I've seen since....well...since Alec Baldwin parodied Trump...but I digress.

Funniest bit in this video: Jeff Session suffered a significant childhood trauma: the passing of the Civil Rights Act. (yes, democrats, you are allowed a small wry smile at this)

Huh, who knew that Sessions was a Democrat when the Civil Rights Act passed?

Know your history, the majority of the opposition to the Civil Right Act was DEMOCRATS. In fact, the filibuster attempt was led by 18 DEMOCRATS and one sole Republican. In both the House and Senate, Republican SUPPORT (80%) far outpaced Democrat support (60-67%) and was necessary for passage.

Of the 27 votes against in the Senate, 21 were Democrats.

Of the 126 votes against in the House, 91 were Democrats.

Anyone disappointed by the passage of the Civil Rights Act was far more likely to be a DEMOCRAT!

 

[Route 45]

Huh, who knew that Sessions was a Democrat when the Civil Rights Act passed?

Know your history, the majority of the opposition to the Civil Right Act was DEMOCRATS. In fact, the filibuster attempt was led by 18 DEMOCRATS and one sole Republican. In both the House and Senate, Republican SUPPORT (80%) far outpaced Democrat support (60-67%) and was necessary for passage.

Of the 27 votes against in the Senate, 21 were Democrats.

Of the 126 votes against in the House, 91 were Democrats.

Anyone disappointed by the passage of the Civil Rights Act was far more likely to be a DEMOCRAT!

I read this post with a wry smile.

 

[AtTheMurph]

At some point, you'll recognize that the behavior isn't political. It's gender. If you defend predatory behavior for one party over the other, you might be a good party man, but you've missed the larger moral question.

Franken's actions were inappropriate. If this is not a singular instance, then they should be disclosed and he can suffer the consequences. Otherwise, I still feel the foto is what I'd expect of an eighth grader, not a 40 year old. Is it worth pursuing legally? I would agree with the lady: it's done and over with.

As to Trump: I submit that there is a consistent behavior pattern that shows he has an expectation of privilege, whether its in business or women. He deserves neither.

The photo is a nothing burger. It is a moment in time. Did he actually grope her just after or before that picture? Did he really forcibly stick his tongue down her throat? I see no reason to not believe Tweeden.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

At some point, you'll recognize that the behavior isn't political. It's gender. If you defend predatory behavior for one party over the other, you might be a good party man, but you've missed the larger moral question.

Franken's actions were inappropriate. If this is not a singular instance, then they should be disclosed and he can suffer the consequences. Otherwise, I still feel the foto is what I'd expect of an eighth grader, not a 40 year old. Is it worth pursuing legally? I would agree with the lady: it's done and over with.

As to Trump: I submit that there is a consistent behavior pattern that shows he has an expectation of privilege, whether its in business or women. He deserves neither.

Just a nit, but check your math. Franken was 55 years old when he committed the sexual assault.

 

[Alpo]

Huh, who knew that Sessions was a Democrat when the Civil Rights Act passed?

Know your history, the majority of the opposition to the Civil Right Act was DEMOCRATS. In fact, the filibuster attempt was led by 18 DEMOCRATS and one sole Republican. In both the House and Senate, Republican SUPPORT (80%) far outpaced Democrat support (60-67%) and was necessary for passage.

Of the 27 votes against in the Senate, 21 were Democrats.

Of the 126 votes against in the House, 91 were Democrats.

Anyone disappointed by the passage of the Civil Rights Act was far more likely to be a DEMOCRAT!

Know YOUR history. Please enumerate the democrats who voted against the bill. What states did they represent.

Perhaps you're too young to recognize that there were southern democrats who would never be members of the Party of Lincoln. Hence, Dixiecrats.

 

[Alpo]

*

 

[Alpo]

Just a nit, but check your math. Franken was 55 years old when he committed the sexual assault.

Yes, it is a nit. Let's move along.

 

[Alpo]

*

 

[Woobie]

Know YOUR history. Please enumerate the democrats who voted against the bill. What states did they represent.

Perhaps you're too young to recognize that there were southern democrats who would never be members of the Party of Lincoln. Hence, Dixiecrats.

Lol, nice refutation.

Instead of facts or counterpoints, you managed to come up with "no, you're more stupider."

 

[SheepDog4Life]

So what? Read the findings. Then read the 1000's of pages of congressional investigation. See anything new?

The FIRST responsibility of the SoS, BY LAW, is the security and protection of diplomats abroad... there is no "or designee" in the law, it's the Secretary of State's responsibility. That she didn't know what someone (her, "it wasn't me" defense) in DoS was doing with the Libyan diplomatic mission security situation is dereliction of duty... regardless of what her hand-picked-by-herself review board might say.

22 U.S. Code § 4802 - Responsibility of Secretary of State

(1) The Secretary of State shall develop and implement (in consultation with the heads of other Federal agencies having personnel or missions abroad where appropriate and within the scope of the resources made available) policies and programs, including funding levels and standards, to provide for the security of United States Government operations of a diplomatic nature and foreign government operations of a diplomatic nature in the United States. Such policies and programs shall include—

(A) protection of all United States Government personnel on official duty abroad (other than Voice of America correspondents on official assignment and those personnel under the command of a United States area military commander) and their accompanying dependents;

 

[Route 45]

Know YOUR history. Please enumerate the democrats who voted against the bill. What states did they represent.

Perhaps you're too young to recognize that there were southern democrats who would never be members of the Party of Lincoln. Hence, Dixiecrats.

 

[Alpo]

Please Woobie. You are becoming intolerable with your childish insults.

 

[Alpo]

I can't help it if you weren't alive then. Some of us remember that time, were aware of the significant senate filibuster and what Johnson and Dirksen did to push this bill through.

 

[Woobie]

Please Woobie. You are becoming intolerable with your childish insults.

Insults?

I just pointed out the weakness of your reply. If you have a real argument, make it. He posted facts, and instead of countering them, you just said he didn't know what he was talking about. Well if you're going to make the claim he is wrong you bear the burden of proof to show he is. But, as had become too common, you offered nothing to counter.

You aren't the only person these days to find facts insulting.

 

[Alpo]

Yes, I claim that if you don't understand the distinctive differences of the southern democrats in the 1960's, a general observation might seem to be a major debate win.

It is not. The southern democrats despised the republican party because of Lincoln and reconstruction.

I don't need to "bear the burden of proof" for poorly thought out counterpoints. History is what it is. Do your own research and quit kibbitzing.

 

[Route 45]

I can't help it if you weren't alive then. Some of us remember that time, were aware of the significant senate filibuster and what Johnson and Dirksen did to push this bill through.

I'll expect you to refrain from commenting on anything that happened before you were born. So, are we talking Spanish-American war, or what? I need to know the boundaries.

Funny thing about facts. (Like, you know, how many democrats voted a certain way on a particular bill) They don't care how old you are.

 

[Woobie]

Yes, I claim that if you don't understand the distinctive differences of the southern democrats in the 1960's, a general observation might seem to be a major debate win.

It is not. The southern democrats despised the republican party because of Lincoln and reconstruction.

I don't need to "bear the burden of proof" for poorly thought out counterpoints. History is what it is. Do your own research and quit kibbitzing.

So people who hated Republicans, and were members of the Democrat party were the ones who filibustered the civil rights legislation. I've not seen anything to refute that. Political parties have always had their factions. But the main resistance to that legislation came out of the Democrats, and you can't do anything to deny it other than to tell people to research "facts" you yourself fail to provide. Just because you believe the story you were sold back then doesn't make it true.

If you really think a counterpoint is poorly thought out, surely you can demonstrate why.

 

[Alpo]

So, you're saying that I am wrong about the southern democrats and the 64 Civil Rights Act?

Yes, facts matter, which makes Sheep's point pretty ludicrous, don'tcha think?

 

[Route 45]

So, you're saying that I am wrong about the southern democrats and the 64 Civil Rights Act?

Yes, facts matter, which makes Sheep's point pretty ludicrous, don'tcha think?

So your whole counter-argument is "not real Democrats?"

LOL

 

[Alpo]

Oh, I'm saying the southern democrats, by and large were racist sob's, more properly part of the conservative movement of the republican party today.

I give you: Exhibit A