re: #96 Buck

No, but only because I am no longer doing links.

Why are you no longer doing links? Do you mean these interviews aren’t actually reported anywhere other than wingnut places?

The story linked to in the OP makes it clear that this is a secure building, not a public office. People have to be buzzed in. The people who allegedly did the recording were known to the McConnell office. They were not invited. It will be known soon enough how they got in (misrepresented who they are?)

As I said, what they did was an ethical breach, and may have been illegal. To know if it was illegal for certain, we’ll have to have more facts. You claim to have these facts, but you won’t actually give them. I’ve already condemed the recording as unethical, and said it may be illegal. If you give me proof that it was, not just speculation, I’ll do so. You haven’t.

You are funny. I am pointing out that you had no problem with the mocking of Dr. Ben Carson, and you want to reverse that and make it sound like my sense of morality is relative?

You still don’t get it. They’re not mocking her Christianity in the same terms as Ben Carson’s anti-science beliefs are being mocked. They’re mocking the way she’s expressing her religious beliefs. They don’t care about the sincerity with which she’s expressing them.

I really don’t know how you can fail to understand this. You are putting mocking someone for believing the earth was created 6000 years ago to mocking someone for the particular way they expressed their religious beliefs. The two things are not only not exactly the same, they’re not even remotely similar. The earth really isn’t 6000 years old. Carson really is nutty to think that it is. Religion that declares science to be false and teaches ignorance is mockable, as purposeful ignorance always is.

Instead, these people are mocking her for quoting St. Francis of Assisi. Nothing she said is wrong, just mystical. It was an expression of her relationship with god.

If you can show me being ‘fine’ with someone mocking someone for just expressing the way they relate to god— not denying science, or hating on gay people— then go for it. But you can’t.

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.

They discussed using her depression, the result of multiple rapes, to attack her.

if you were present at that session, Buck, would you at least have spoken out about the abhorrent nature of these proposed attacks?