The Title and Subtitle of what was put on the Progressive Website read, "Meet a Romney Extremist in Virginia - A staffer in a Romney campaign office wants to execute parents on welfare and give their kids up for adoption."
I did not say that I wanted to execute parents on welfare and give their kids up for adoption.
I said that it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption.
Does it bother you that Progressives have to intentionally lie to make their positions look good? Could that intentional lie be a bases for a deformation of character law suit?
80 comments
"Does it bother you that Progressives have to intentionally lie to make their positions look good?"
Yeah, I'm sure now that the truth has come out, people will be flocking to render children orphans for the crime of having been born out of wedlock.
OK, it wasn't the EXACT same words you had used, but it was in the same spirit. That's not a lie, that's a misunderstanding, at most. You deformed your own character perfectly fine on your own, Cliffy.
"I did not say that I wanted to execute parents on welfare and give their kids up for adoption.
I said that it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption."
Well I'm glad you cleared that up. For a moment there I thought you were being unreasonable.
Defamation of character covers both libel and slander. In both cases, Russell would have to provide financial or personal damage from the defamation.
But he's saying parents who have children out of wedlock should be executed . He already confesses to being a monster. No defamation here.
Admit it Clifford, even though you didn't say you wanted to execute them, you know you actually do.
The Progressives got it right despite the misquote.
The word you're want is "defamation" and you did it to your own character with that little gem.
Does it bother you that Progressives have to intentionally lie to make their positions look good?
Are you FUCKING kidding me?! Progressives are not the bothersome thing here, it's the genocide!
What you're saying is basically the equivalent of, "Do these Jews have no decency? I have a migraine and they keep screaming as I shovel them into the incinerator. What uncouth barbarians! Don't they even care about MY feelings?"
"I did not say that I wanted to execute parents on welfare and give their kids up for adoption. "
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence to suggest what you actually believe was misconstrued there.
"I said that it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption. "
Yeah, ok, like that's much better and totally not offensive. The fact you even thought that anyone would find that to be more reasonable pretty much proves my point.
@VioletBeauregarde
Oh yes he is, from the same "Rebuttal":
"Abortion represents the killing of the only innocent person associated with the adultery or fornication that has occurred."
And apparantly the reason he wants to execute the parents of illigitimate children is because those kids will end up on welfare and therefore vote Democrat.
Another fucking gem:
"Poverty is not proof of sin, but sin should be considered when there is poverty."
I thought the official Republican line was that they didn't hate poor people?
"it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child "
Better than what?
We can't go back in time and take out Grover Cleveland or Strom Thurmond, but there's still time to knock off Vito Fossella (R, NYC) and Arnold Schwartzenegger. Go for it.
you even misrepresented what he said you said.
you spent half a rant describing how poor people who need welfare and have children are "illegitimate families". you call the children of illegitimate families illegitimate children.
keeping this in mind, saying "i think the children of parents on welfare should put up for adoption and the parents executed" =
"it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption."
@Old Viking: Bravo! You win internets!
Progressives don't have to intentionally lie to look good... They slightly misquoted what you said which was, in any case, barbaric and absurd. They aren't trying to look good here, they're just pointing at you and saying "That dude wants to execute innocent people. WTF." Not exactly the same. When your opponent is advocating what are quite literally draconian punishments (not that I'd expect you to know who Draco was), you don't have to try to look good. You make despots look good.
"a bases"? Might want to check your plurals there, boyo. The singular is basis.
"I did not say that I wanted to execute parents on welfare and give their kids up for adoption.
I said that it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption."
Oh. Well then. If you put it like that then it's so much better, isn't it?
You're still a fucking knob either way, and sadly you'll never understand why either version makes you look like a lunatic.
Removing their children based entirely on them being born out of wedlock? Every class of people do this, not to mention the centuries of people married while the wife is NOTICABLY pregnant.
Large size wedding gowns did not start with Americas obesity and wedding gowns aren't legally or religiously required to be married.
And being the husband on welfare with an illegitamate (the child is always legetimate in this scenario, by the way)is always harder to get welfare funds for.
That reminds me of the man who sat down at the banquet table, stuck his hand in the spinach, and ran it through his hair. When the other guests stared at him, he said, "I'm sorry. I thought it was the endive."
Good to know you are still a horrible monster who deserves to burn in the hottest fire of all.
The Sun.
Please, we have got a rocket all setup for you to go there! Just step aboard.
This whole thing is insane, and his definition of "illegitmate" as "children where one of both parents fail to provide for the child" is unbelievably flawed. I'm guessing he really means "those lazy darkies who knock a girl up and never come back," but under this definition I believe parents who were married, divorced, and one of them stops supporting the child would count. So I guess he feels my aunt, who works hard as an attorney representing the interests of children in custody battles, and who was able to raise my cousin well even without my uncle, should have been executed because said uncle for a time was negligent about his child support payments (they did and still do share custody, and he never mistreated my cousin; he just for a while consistently needled my aunt via things like skipping those payments, and since he remarried and stopped drinking he's acted a lot better). I'm guessing Cliff here wouldn't argue for that because she's middle-class and white, and those types don't need to be removed from society.
Dovetailing into those who were thankfully defeated in the senatorial races, under this definition Mr. Russell would also advocate executing female rape victims. After all, women who are raped and get pregnant as a result of it (in the unlikely event where her reproductive system didn't shut that whole thing down because it was God's will that it happen) shouldn't use the morning after pill or abort the fetus later on down the line (later in that response he of course says he's against contraception and abortion), so when they give birth, I doubt the rapist is going to support the child. So, does Russell want her killed immediately after she gives birth, or does he give her a grace period to try to track down the rapist and force him to pay child support?
And, come to think of it, he never specified what "support" entails. Is it only financial support, or does he require the parents to stay together, no matter how much acrimony there might be between them? If it's the latter, he's essentially outlawing divorce, as if you've already had at least one child you're going to be executed for making your children illegitimate.
I don't even know why I'm rationally picking apart this crazy spiel. I guess it's because I needed to do more than just stare agape at my monitor.
One other thing. Given the mind boggling idiocy of either statement, they could have just made a mistake.
It's not a lie if you're just mistaken.
Does it bother you that Progressives have to intentionally lie to make their positions look good? Could that intentional lie be a bases for a deformation of character law suit?
To the first question, no. Honesty in politics? Are you serious?
To the second, yes. I am a top, hot shot lawyer and I think that you should pay lots of money to have your day in court.
Face it, Clifford...you and your ilk are TOAST!
But that would be an insult to toast!
image
Mmmmmmmmmm....Toast....
According to the CDC statistics for 2010 which were just released...
"Childbearing by unmarried women declined in 2010 for the second consecutive year, as reflected in fewer births (1,633,471) and a lower birth rate (47.6 per 1,000)."
That is going to be one hell of a lot of executions, (1,633,471 X 2 parents = 3,266,942) roughly 9000 every day of the year. That sounds like an awfully expensive new government program your proposing there Mr. Russell!
I have an idea, we can use the bodies to make a nutritional supplement and sell it to recoup the expenses, we can call our product "Soylent Green," has a catchy ring to it ehh?
Does it bother you that you put two mutually contradictory statements next to each other and don't realise it? Or maybe you do realise it but think your audience is too stupid to notice.
Does it bother you that conservatives say things that bring up this pair of options?
Um, so what's the difference between those two statements? Why are conservative idiots like that so stupid and unfeeling that they can't understand how vile they really are when they advocate murdering people for something which isn't even a crime? Why is killing people the conservative answer for everything, even when they claim to be pro-life?
And how much you wanna bet that at some point this dumbass complained about "death panels" in Obamacare?
I read the rest of the article, and the rest of his "comeback" is pure inanity. I can't even believe we live in the same COUNTRY as this nutjob, but I suppose you need to fill up the extremes of the political spectrum somehow...although, I have yet to see an extreme "liberal".
"I said that it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption."
Which means you're in favor of executing welfare parents and giving their children away. You're a monster. There were no lies told.
You know, Cliff, if you had just let it slide, the execution of parents of kids on welfare would mean MILLIONS fewer peple to kill than what you eally meant. Are the churches and charities gonna build all the death camps for these parents to die in? or are you gonna just issue a kristian fatwa on 'em all?
>execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption.
Oh well, that's MUCH better.
"Does it bother you that Progressives have to intentionally lie to make their positions look good? Could that intentional lie be a bases for a deformation of character law suit?"
Not if it makes you look better than you are, no.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.