"The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture."
- New York Times, September 28, 2006
The bill that the New York times is talking about here is the bill that Michael Arcuri supports.
Consider that.
I think Mike Arcuri should explain to us all why he supports a bill that eliminates the idea that rape of prisoners of war is a form of torture.
I also want to hear from all the Democrats here in New York's 24th congressional district who say that we ought to overlook this issue.
I want to hear from those Democrats why we should vote for a man who says that using rape against prisoners of war is a good idea.
By endorsing HR 6166, Michael Arcuri endorsed the use of rape. That's not just something I made up. That's the judgment of the editors of the New York Times.
Come on. Tell me why it's okay to vote for the pro-rape candidate.
Republicans can join in on this one too, because Ray Meier supports the torture-by-rape law too.
When will you allow your political party loyalty to give way to your sense of shame?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Jon said, "Come on. Tell me why it's okay to vote for the pro-rape candidate."
OK - it's OK to vote for the pro-rape candidate when that vote is the most likely vote to reduce the rape.
Jon asks "When will you allow your political party loyalty to give way to your sense of shame?"
My political party loyalty doesn't have anything to do with it. I've gotten past the shame. I've decided to be pragmatic about it.
Well, Allen, I haven't gotten past my shame.
I am not going to get so "pragmatic" as to endorse someone who supports the legalization of rape.
Please, Allen. Listen to yourself. You just said "it's OK to vote for the pro-rape candidate".
If this is what Michael Arcuri's defenders are saying in his behalf, that's a very, very bad sign.
Jon said "Allen, You can't blame Karl Rove for Michael Arcuri's support for torture, for the repeal of the Geneva Conventions, for kangaroo courts, and warrantless searches of our homes, and for the revocation of habeas corpus. "
I thought I made a pretty good case (see comments yesterday)
"Michael Arcuri is the one who made the choice to support this. The responsibility lies with Michael Arcuri. I don't hear you defending a single part of this bill, Allen. I don't see you saying that Michael Arcuri did the right thing."
I said it was the worst bill passed in my lifetime. I've said Arcuri is a jerk, and not fit to serve in congress - and it kills me that I'm going to have to vote for him.
Jon said "Please, Allen. Listen to yourself. You just said "it's OK to vote for the pro-rape candidate".
Please, Jon. Don't edit out the second half of a quote when it completely changes the nature of the message.
Listen to yourself. You are saying it's OK to throw away your vote, on principle, and to avoid shame, even when doing so results in more of the horrible abuses you are complaining about
No, Allen, I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth.
I am not putting words in your mouth. You said that "it is OK to vote for the pro-rape candidate".
Yes, you offered qualifications afterwards.
But, that's the difference between your position and mine. I don't think that it's OK to vote for a pro-rape candidate. Not ever. You do.
I know that you mean well, Allen, and have the best interests of America at heart. I don't want to disrepect you personally.
However, I think it's important that you reflect on what you've said.
You just said that Michael Arcuri is a jerk. You just said that Michael Arcuri is not fit to serve in Congress.
If the candidate is pro-rape, a jerk, and in general not fit to serve in Congress, why do you want to vote for him?
Arcuri has promised to make things worse - not better - if he is elected.
Not voting for Arcuri is not throwing away my vote. Voting for Arcuri is throwing away my vote.
It's just about making tough choices. I'm going to vote for a candidate that I don't like, because I think I'll get the best result for the greatest number of people.
FDR took us to war in 1939. 62 million people died in that war. People were tortured. Innocent civilians were bombed. He knew what would happen, and it bothered him. He did it anyway, and we are better off for it.
My actions aren't quite so earth shaking, but collectively we are going to make decisions that might affect the future just as much.
Well, you have the right to make that choice, Allen. I can't join you in that choice.
I will not help a craven coward who promotes torture, rape, the roundup of foreigners into secret prisons, the end of habeas corpus, and the general erosion of American liberty.
However we plan to vote, the Democrats of this district should unite in calling upon Michael Arcuri to change his position and prominently denounce HR 6166.
Will you call Michael Arcuri and urge him to do so, Allen?
"Will you call Michael Arcuri and urge him to do so, Allen?"
Absolutely. In fact I just went to his campaign event. He wasn't there yet and I couldn't stay, so I left a letter with Joan, who will give it (and others) to him if he fails to denounce that horrible bill.
Jon it's fairly simple. Ray Meier will never reverse this legislation. Not in a million years.
With Arcuri, he will probably vote to reverse it.
There is not a realistic third party choice here. Voting for whatshisname instead of Arcuri will leave Meier with the same majority of votes.
Get rid of the Republican majority and you get rid of these problems and this hypocrisy in voting. Period.
Anonymous, it's more simple than that.
Yesterday, Michael Arcuri told an audience once again that he supports this law.
He supports it.
He won't repeal it.
Stop your wishful thinking, and listen to the words coming out of Arcuri's own mouth.
Post a Comment