re: #96 Buck

Seriously is that what you think I said? You are correct to doubt that. I have read the transcript. At no time did anyone discuss attacking a woman for being raped. Certainly no one actually attacked a woman for being raped.

I think that’s a bit of a stretch. They were going to say she was unsuitable due to a history of depression, which was brought on by rape. That’s a shitty thing to do and I doubt you would endorse this course of action as being morally acceptable.

re: #97 Buck

Without that, this seems to me that this is starting to point to a class D felony.

You’re correct to point out the legal issues surrounding these events. I think it’s also fair to acknowledge that the actions that McConnell and his associates were contemplating, namely the depression line of attack and the hypocrisy of a supposedly pro-Christian party attacking someone for quoting an early Christian saint are morally reprehensible.