Cheat to keep Republicans from winning Mass Senate seat, says MSNBC's Schultz

So everybody but one person instantly denounces a lefty radio person for jokingly advocating voter fraud (and I still denounce and demand firing even if it is a joke). Meanwhile the righties are daily saying idiotic things, “Haiti making a pact with the devil” and “we give enough to Haiti” (Robertson and Limbaugh) being the right wing idiocy of the last week and the righties pretty much suck it up and take it, not caring that they are associated with racist idiots.

I can understand why some thinking people are conservatives still, but not why anybody with two brain cells to rub together is a Republican party booster unless they are paid to do so. Of course, the exception may be swallowing the rule.

I can understand why all sorts of felons commit felonies and people like dumb ideas. It’s called empathy. I understand why people have great dislike of Republicanism, but I don’t think it is worth advocating crimes for.

You do realize that same argument could be used by Republicans, equally convinced that the Dems are subverting the Constitution? What’s good for the goose, etc (although I have a strong feeling you’d be bursting with righteous indignation if a Republican had suggested this.)

Really, Bricker? You really started a thread in Great Debates based on an obvious throwaway hyperbole that even you admit you didn’t take seriously?
Really?

No, because Yog’s interpretation of the constitution is the one and only correct interpretation.

I asked for this stupid thread to get moved to The Pit or MPSIMS instead of clogging up GD with stupid partisan rants.

I definitely didn’t get what I asked for.

The thing is, if you want zero sides doing this stuff, then two sides doing it isn’t better than one.

The people who do shit like this are my enemies. It doesn’t matter what party they are.

It works better if you imagine Seth Myers and Amy Poehler saying that in unison.

I’m not sure why you’re having trouble grasping this, but I’ll be happy to try to explain again.

I’m not sure whether Shultz was serious or not. I think it’s likely that he was semi-serious – that is, saying something he believed but with the ready cover of “It was hyperbole!” or “Can’t those righties take a joke?”

But what I am certain of is that a non-zero segment of his listeners absolutely agreed with the idea. Is that proposition ill-suited for debate?

I took your comment “Maybe we can find some people who think election fraud is Okey Dokey somewhere,” to be mocking and sarcastic – that is, you made it to convey the idea that actually finding such people would never happen.

Was I mistaken?

If you already knew the answer, there was nothing to debate, right?

Unless you didn’t really mean that, either.

For someone who nigh but constantly joins in the incessant whining about the mistreatment from the far, far left wing, you sure pay them an awful lot of time and attention.

You can find people to support pretty much any idea, from sex with children, to torturing people, to murdering abortion doctors. Finding the far reaches of either party isn’t exactly hard. Pandering to them, and trying to portray them as mainstream, THAT’S my problem with your threads.

This thin excuse would make any topic suited for Great Debates-you name a proposition, idea, side etc.,not matter how rediculous or insane, and I’m sure I can find someone who’ll support it.

Again I’ll point out that there are any number of posts here from me criticizing Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coluter, and most recently Pat Robertson’s odious remark.

I am confident that I’m applying the same analysis to this as has been amply demonstrated on this message board as applied to other polarizing figures and statements.

Never match wits with a Cecilian when death is on the line. And never, ever, ever get into a semantic parsing fight with a Jesuit-trained lawyer.

And that makes it right?

Ah, Bricker, once again, seizing the high road of intelligent discourse. Kudos to you and enjoy wallowing in your thread.

Republicans can use it, but it doesn’t make it right. That’s like a murderer saying that because other people do bad things without punishment, it’s ok for him to murder

For too long Republicans have been claiming equal moral stance whenever one of their own exhibits a failing. Mark Foley, Vitter, Larry Craig, Limbaug, Bachmann, etc. All of their replies to dumb shit they’ve done or said is “But Dems do it too so we’re all equally bad!”

NO fucking way. Democrats are not subverting the Constitution. There is no equivalent crime compared to the myriad of treasonous and evil things the Reps have done and said. They can blow hot air until they’re blue in the face but the fact is there is no equivalent Dem moral failing, not in degree and not in number. The Reps say that because otherwise they’d have to acknowledge their failures and make their case for election seem weaker, and losing power is not something they’d ever consider.

Sorry, but the analogy holds true: In order to save the Constitution from Republicans that would destroy it, Dems must do anything and everything to prevent them from coming into power. They are evil and up to no good

Change the date, add Democrat after Republican and this post will be utterly complete. Or better yet, change Republican and Democrat to “politician”.