How the fuck is there a statute of limitations for rape in New York?

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you mean nope, lol.  Obama is a center right corporatist.  That;s just the way it is.  No amount of twisting your scrotum will change that.  If the center right is your fanatical left..then so be it. Clinton, btw, even further right than Obama. Romney, granted, is in the far right stratosphere, I can see why he would appeal to you (though him being a mor-man as a problem seems rather petty..what happened to no religious tests..constitution ring a bell?).  The danger of inventing your own reality, if this has somehow escaped you in all your time here, is that you only end up coming off like a loon...you don't change anything with it.

/shrugs.

[Drich]

Yes, I'm aware that the Confederate flag thieves and political yard sign snatchers think they operate from a moral high ground. But theft of private property remains theft of private property, regardless of what the perpetrators believe about the 'rightness' of their motives. It's a statutory matter, as far as the police and courts are concerned. We can soap box all we want about the importance of the 1st Amendment, which I take very seriously, but these examples don't rise to a constitutional issue. They are just intolerant jerks who are breaking statutory law -- plain and simple -- and should be charged and sentenced (if found guilty) on that basis.

And if you really believe the Nazis were far left, then please explain why they had such hatred of the Communists. Was it an intramural spat among leftists? Lol.

And please spare me the bit that goes, "They were national socialists, dumbass! What part of socialism don't you get?" They never based their policy on class, which would have been consistent with real socialism. They based it on nationalism and race, which are red meat issues within the far right. The 'Socialism' bit was just branding for an upstart party that actually had to get elected and whose real competition came from the actual Left in Germany.

Edited to add: On second thought, don't explain your thoughts on Nazis being far left. This thread has enough problems without a Godwin derail. Carry on.

educate yourself you sound like a moron:
https://www.google.com/search?q=nazi+cla...AqMQsAQIGw

Pm me if you wish to discuss how the nazis did indeed classify everyone by race as well as occupation/which is where the two differed the greatest (and if you remember they were allies under a signed non aggression pact! till hitler got greedy) or start you own thread.. Title it "Drich school me on the proper understanding of the failed relationship between communist russia and the Nazis" so i can find it.

[Drich]

Too far left (which is EXACTLY what the NAZI party was, fanatical left) and you breed a hitler if left unchecked.

That's idiotic to the point of a blabbering imbecile.

The Nazis that were even remotely left were done away with in 1934. It was called the Strasser movement. But to know anything about that, you'd have to have at least a fleeting knowledge of history. Which you haven't. Outside of your religious or rightwing propaganda outlets.

If you want to know about the Nazi party, you better look at who financed them in their struggle for power. I guess even you would see that the Krupps or the Thyssens, Henri Ford even, among others wouldn't have much sympathy for lefties. Same obviously goes for Papen, who was the political arm making it possible for Hitler to come to power.

maybe you should start the thread i mentioned above.. Just please use the title so I am be sure to find it.

[Crossless2.0]

No, I think I'll call it "Drich, Read Mein Kampf and Tell Me What Hitler's Attitude Was Toward Eastern Europe and Russia and Then Get Back to Me on the Non-Aggression Pact and How Naïve Stalin Really Was".  

[The Grand Nudger]

You see the kind of rot we're dealing with here?  Somebody told this guy that hitler and obama were lefties...and I guess he just swallowed that shit.  It would seem unbelievable, but then you remember he believes forced sex isn;t rape....and that torturing a jew has saved him from a fairies wrath.  

So, on the balance of it...him being a balance guy and all, not that remarkable in the end.

[Drich]

Your senario is not what happened.

In your senario the woman has indeed dealt with the issue and recovered to the point where she is consoleing her partner.

This is not what happened here.

I opened with a motivating statement.

Then i got a story of a rape that happened once 15 years ago that was not reported, but was being used to solidify a counter argument.. Maybe I'm just too sensitive or too emotional to imagine someone so shamed or scared into silence bring up such a topic just to win an argument with strangers...

This had the opposite effect on me i did not feel empathy I felt a need to vet or challenge the statement. Then we get a response of having to be made to relive all of this 'it's like being raped all over again yada yada yada...

Which again IS THE TOTAL OPPOSITE of your scenario. If she was in place of seeking recovery, then 15 years is past the point of mourning. UNLESS she is seeking to be a perminate victim. which I pointed out in my initial dialog.

Her mourning "being made to relive the rape" does not an indication of any effort of recovery 15 years down the road. However it does indeed show an effort to maintain perpetual victimhood, in which case demand pity and forces people to honor them for their misfortune.

I'm not doing that. I honestly think no one who has gone through this type of recovery will ever want to feed a perpetual victim pity, unless it is just some empty meaningless gesture to get away from them. To see a perpetual victim is a reminder of what could have been if we did not endure the suck.

That is the difference you are not taking into consideration. You want to see the best and take people at their word. I see a list of inconsistencies that need to be accounted for. I want other people to see this list as well.

I'm sorry; I wasn't comparing my scenario to the specific situation that happened in this thread with you and Nymph.  I was using it as a comparison to your more generalized allegations throughout the thread that empathy and sympathy for victims perpetuate a "victim mentality."  

I DO want to think the best and take people at their word, you're right.  It's something that I do to a fault, in fact.  But that doesn't mean as a human being I should feel I'm doing a disservice to somebody by feeling compassion for them.

Think, feel, act, how ever you want, not my place to say.

I can only offer a different perspective.

[abaris]

No, I think I'll call it "Drich, Read Mein Kampf and Tell Me What Hitler's Attitude Was Toward Eastern Europe and Russia and Then Get Back to Me on the Non-Aggression Pact and How Naïve Stalin Really Was".  

You don't even need to go there. Just look - as always - to where the money came from. And you will know all you need to know. Unless you seriously think that the major industrial barons of the time would support someone on the far left. Maybe also look at the profits being made during Hitler's reign. And why some of them were indicted at Nuremberg.

That's only the foundations of course. If one were so inclined they also could look at Gregor Strasser or Ernst Röhm and what was happening in 1934 to people not being inclined to play corporate ball.

[Drich]

What do you mean nope, lol.  Obama is a center right corporatist.  That;s just the way it is.  No amount of twisting your scrotum will change that.  If the center right is your fanatical left..then so be it. Clinton, btw, even further right than Obama.  Romney, granted, is in the far right stratosphere, I can see why he would appeal to you (though him being a mor-man as a problem seems rather petty..what happened to no religious tests..constitution ring a bell?).  The danger of inventing your own reality, if this has somehow escaped you in all your time here, is that you only end up coming off like a loon...you don't change anything with it.  

/shrugs.

what in reality did i make up?
Is the civil war made up?

Was the reason (the south had no voice in government/outvoted at every turn) made up

Does not obama repersent the majority of the nation the two times he was elected?

Are there not people diametrically opposed to that?

all I'm saying is left right up down center. what ever you call youself the other party also needs to be heard. they need a go at running the country or we will splinter.

I am not about trying to find a middle ground I am about letting people have a go at running the country

[Crossless2.0]

No, I think I'll call it "Drich, Read Mein Kampf and Tell Me What Hitler's Attitude Was Toward Eastern Europe and Russia and Then Get Back to Me on the Non-Aggression Pact and How Naïve Stalin Really Was".  

You don't even need to go there. Just look - as always - to where the money came from. And you will know all you need to know. Unless you seriously think that the major industrial barons of the time would support someone on the far left. Maybe also look at the profits being made during Hitler's reign. And why some of them were indicted at Nuremberg.

That's only the foundations of course. If one were so inclined they also could look at Gregor Strasser or Ernst Röhm and what was happening in 1934 to people not being inclined to play corporate ball.

You're right, of course, but Hitler's memoir is significant in this context, as well, since his attitude toward Slavs goes directly to the point that his policies were racially motivated.

[abaris]

Was the reason (the south had no voice in government/outvoted at every turn) made up

But you know what their major gripe was, of course. Fearing for their slaves and their economic model. Which, of course, doesn't bother you at all, since you're all for slavery, as you let us know in a previous thread. The bible supports it, so what should be wrong about it? Well, I'm doing you wrong here, it has to be the humane biblical model to be endorsed.