GOP Senate nominee - victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant.

[ictsooner7]

Says it then tries to backtrack saying he "misspoke", this guy is a US congressmen, you righties must be proud................


Todd Akin On Abortion: 'Legitimate Rape' Victims Have 'Ways To Try To Shut That Whole Thing Down' (VIDEO)

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) justified his extreme opposition to abortion by claiming that victims of "legitimate rape" rarely get pregnant.

In an interview with KTVI-TV on Sunday, the GOP Senate nominee was asked if he supported abortion in the case of rape.

"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."

Akin won a three-way primary on Aug. 7 for the rights to a November battle against incumbent Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). McCaskill was "stunned" by Akin's Sunday comments.



@clairecmc
Claire McCaskill
As a woman & former prosecutor who handled 100s of rape cases,I'm stunned by Rep Akin's comments about victims this AM http://t.co/n9SVOukJ

August 19, 2012 7:28 pm via Twitter for iPadReplyRetweetFavorite

"It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape," McCaskill added in a statement. "The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive."

After Akin's primary win, McCaskill wasted little time in pouncing on his conservative record, calling the congressman "out of touch."

"We're going to prove to Missourians that Todd Akin is out of touch with their problems, out of touch with the pain that they feel, and out of touch with the views that they hold dear," she said back on Aug. 8.

Akin's comments on abortion and rape come less than two weeks after he suggested banning the morning-after pill.

“As far as I’m concerned, the morning-after pill is a form of abortion, and I think we just shouldn’t have abortion in this country,” he said in an Aug.8 interview with KCMO radio.

UPDATE (5:25 p.m. ET): Akin's campaign released a statement Sunday on the issue, where the congressman admitted that he "misspoke" in the KTVI interview.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html

[olevetonahill]

they only get Preggers in the 51st thru 57th states not in the 1st 50

[ictsooner7]

they only get Preggers in the 51st thru 57th states not in the 1st 50



Oh you are so funny........................

[olevetonahill]

Oh you are so funny........................

just being fair, youngster
If ya gonna point out one sides mistakes do em all

[ictsooner7]

just being fair, youngster
If ya gonna point out one sides mistakes do em all

57 states = long ignorant long diatribe on how rape victims don't get pregnant and "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo&feature=fvwrel

You are dumber than a bag of hammers.................

[rock on sooner]

57 states = long ignorant long diatribe on how rape victims don't get pregnant and "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37OWL7AzvHo&feature=fvwrel

You are dumber than a bag of hammers.................

Hey, lighen up on the hammers...

[XingTheRubicon]

Out of 1000 abortions, how many are a result of rape.


You guys sure get lathered up over sh*t that never happens.

[XingTheRubicon]

Hey, lighen up on the hammers...

or maybe lighen up on the lighs

[ictsooner7]

Out of 1000 abortions, how many are a result of rape.


You guys sure get lathered up over sh*t that never happens.

How about you apply the same standard as you do to voting fraud? One is too many.................

[badger]

Sometimes when I read crime stories I wonder what I would do if someone would attempt to rape me. I've heard that like prison, you fight as much as you possibly can, and sometimes the rapist will give up. However, I'm just a little blond chick. I don't think I could hold off someone who is that determined to rape, try as I may.

Shutting down pregnancy via my body? I've never heard that one before.

In any event, glad he doesn't represent me. And I'm sure many in Misery are glad that he doesn't represent them in the Senate.

As for if righties are proud of him, let's instead ask the S-E-C! S-E-C! if they're proud of him. They wanted Misery, they can have Misery. Why have two Tigers when you can have three. Durrrrrrrr

[XingTheRubicon]

How about you apply the same standard as you do to voting fraud? One is too many.................

No, I just don't want people that are too ****ing stupid to have a picture of themselves...to be able to vote.

I also would rather a criminal be allowed to vote over welfare and stamp dregs. At least the criminal tried something.

[ictsooner7]

No, I just don't want people that are too ****ing stupid to have a picture of themselves...to be able to vote.

I also would rather a criminal be allowed to vote over welfare and stamp dregs. At least the criminal tried something.

You're complete and total ignorance is astounding. RAPE - "At least the criminal tried something." You're mother must be proud of your total ignorance.

[ictsooner7]

Sometimes when I read crime stories I wonder what I would do if someone would attempt to rape me. I've heard that like prison, you fight as much as you possibly can, and sometimes the rapist will give up. However, I'm just a little blond chick. I don't think I could hold off someone who is that determined to rape, try as I may.

Shutting down pregnancy via my body? I've never heard that one before.

In any event, glad he doesn't represent me. And I'm sure many in Misery are glad that he doesn't represent them in the Senate.

As for if righties are proud of him, let's instead ask the S-E-C! S-E-C! if they're proud of him. They wanted Misery, they can have Misery. Why have two Tigers when you can have three. Durrrrrrrr

You are making ZERO sense. SEC and tigers? Really?

You people take any liberal and claim every liberal suports him or her - IE john edwards. Now when a US CONGRESSMAN just makes up ignorant sh!t you act like don't apply the same standard as you do to the left.

[BigTip]

You guys sure get lathered up

http://blog.donordrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/angry-man-computer1.jpg

[olevetonahill]

http://blog.donordrive.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/angry-man-computer1.jpg

Where you get that Pic of Icky?

[BigTip]

just being fair, youngster
If ya gonna point out one sides mistakes do em all
I thought this was a very fair post, AND you managed to not call anybody a caustic name.
We all know that neither party has a monopoly on stupid.

[olevetonahill]

I thought this was a very fair post, AND you managed to not call anybody a caustic name.
We all know that neither party has a monopoly on stupid.

Im so glad i could accommodate you

[BigTip]

Where you get that Pic of Icky?

This is just a representation. I was trying to find one with the guy spitting all over the screen, with a little froth on his chin, but couldn't find one.

Icky is not the first of his kind that I have encountered on the internet. But this picture is how I envision them, just balls of anger waiting to unleash their wrath on whomever might dare disagree with their views. There is no escalation from post to post in their manner, they go from 0-60 on the spew scale, in one post. I just sit and scratch my head, "Where in the heck did THAT come from?"

It's sad. I really do want to hear the other side so that I can understand their reasoning. But I have to discount anyone that calls someone a name. The first one to lose their temper and call names loses in my book.

[SCOUT]

This is just a representation. I was trying to find one with the guy spitting all over the screen, with a little froth on his chin, but couldn't find one.

Icky is not the first of his kind that I have encountered on the internet. But this picture is how I envision them, just balls of anger waiting to unleash their wrath on whomever might dare disagree with their views. There is no escalation from post to post in their manner, they go from 0-60 on the spew scale, in one post. I just sit and scratch my head, "Where in the heck did THAT come from?"

It's sad. I really do want to hear the other side so that I can understand their reasoning. But I have to discount anyone that calls someone a name. The first one to lose their temper and call names loses in my book.
Could not agree more. I come to this forum to see what people who see the world differently from me think. If everything has to be a contest, there is little room for anything else.

[diverdog]

Out of 1000 abortions, how many are a result of rape.


You guys sure get lathered up over sh*t that never happens.

Are you sure?

Cause this is is what the facts say when I just do a basic google search:


. Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We attempted to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape. STUDY DESIGN: A national probability sample of 4008 adult American women took part in a 3-year longitudinal survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes. RESULTS: The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Among 34 cases of rape-related pregnancy, the majority occurred among adolescents and resulted from assault by a known, often related perpetrator. Only 11.7% of these victims received immediate medical attention after the assault, and 47.1% received no medical attention related to the rape. A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester; 32.2% opted to keep the infant whereas 50% underwent abortion and 5.9% placed the infant for adoption; an additional 11.8% had spontaneous abortion. CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:320-5.)


http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(96)70141-2/abstract

[XingTheRubicon]

regret for being a tramp is not rape



I was referencing pregnancies that stemmed from actual rape, not smeared mascara and panties in the purse after an out of control kegger.

[KantoSooner]

It is rare to see such a perfect argument in favor of post-natal abortion as this guy. He truly sets new standards in attempting to answer the old question, "How stupid can you be and still live?"

[jkjsooner]

Out of 1000 abortions, how many are a result of rape.


You guys sure get lathered up over sh*t that never happens.

It does happen.

If you don't think it ever happens then allow exceptions for rape and cases where the mother's life is in danger. Seems to me that it's not only liberals who make a big deal out of it.

[LiveLaughLove]

What this guy said was idiotic and unnecessary. I am against abortion, period. I firmly believe it to be murder, double period.

Having said that, a certain Illinois state senator was the only one to argue that a baby that survives an abortion with completely exiting the womb, should still die because that's what the woman wanted.

I think we know who that state senator was.

I'll take the idiotic statement over the blatant murderer.

On a side note, watch how much more press coverage this guy gets over bidens chains gaffe. The media has been salivating for a republican, any republican to do a Biden. This one was perfect, it hit a divisive issue to boot.

[ictsooner7]

regret for being a tramp is not rape



I was referencing pregnancies that stemmed from actual rape, not smeared mascara and panties in the purse after an out of control kegger.



GGGEEEEZZZZZZ................so who determines when it is “actual” rape?

[Midtowner]

regret for being a tramp is not rape

I was referencing pregnancies that stemmed from actual rape, not smeared mascara and panties in the purse after an out of control kegger.

Disgusting.

[ictsooner7]

What this guy said was idiotic and unnecessary. I am against abortion, period. I firmly believe it to be murder, double period.

Having said that, a certain Illinois state senator was the only one to argue that a baby that survives an abortion with completely exiting the womb, should still die because that's what the woman wanted.

I think we know who that state senator was.

I'll take the idiotic statement over the blatant murderer.

On a side note, watch how much more press coverage this guy gets over bidens chains gaffe. The media has been salivating for a republican, any republican to do a Biden. This one was perfect, it hit a divisive issue to boot.

bidens chains = women who get raped have a way to shut that down

like said GGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[ictsooner7]

Disgusting.

From XingTheRubicon profile

Interests:
going to the funerals of people I've murdered.

Tells everything i need to know about him............................

[okie52]

regret for being a tramp is not rape



I was referencing pregnancies that stemmed from actual rape, not smeared mascara and panties in the purse after an out of control kegger.

Hilarious

[ictsooner7]

Hilarious

the ignorance on the board is mind boggling, i really hope neither of you have daughters or wives this ever happens too. I can only imagine your support for them. I also hope neither of you have sons you have taught this too.

[ictsooner7]

Looks like the repubs are seeing the light;

On Sunday night, Akin said he had misspoken, but did not disavow his remarks or explain where he had received the information on which they were based. By Monday morning, top Republican officials were calling on him to resign, with strategist Mike Murphy summarizing the sentiment in a tweet: "Akin should put good of GOP first and resign nomination now after his idiotic comment. Senate control too important."McCaskill challenged Akin to name a doctor who would actually back up his claim, saying his comments were born from a deep ignorance of women's issues.

of course we don't want him out, we can keep this seat with him in the race.

[okie52]

the ignorance on the board is mind boggling, i really hope neither of you have daughters or wifes this every happens too. I can only imagine your support for them. I also hope neither of you have sons you have taught this too.



Go Women go!!!!

End the War on women!!!

[ictsooner7]

Go Women go!!!!

End the War on women!!!

Your party really should. He is just following your party's stance on rape:

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding.

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

Read more: Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and the GOP's latest push to redefine rape.For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Only after pressure did they drop it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion

[TitoMorelli]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/25217094.jpg

[okie52]

Your party really should. He is just following your party's stance on rape:

The House GOP's Plan to Redefine Rape

Drugged, raped, and pregnant? Too bad. Republicans are pushing to limit rape and incest cases eligible for government abortion funding.

Rape is only really rape if it involves force. So says the new House Republican majority as it now moves to change abortion law.

Read more: Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, and the GOP's latest push to redefine rape.For years, federal laws restricting the use of government funds to pay for abortions have included exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. (Another exemption covers pregnancies that could endanger the life of the woman.) But the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act," a bill with 173 mostly Republican co-sponsors that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has dubbed a top priority in the new Congress, contains a provision that would rewrite the rules to limit drastically the definition of rape and incest in these cases.

With this legislation, which was introduced last week by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), Republicans propose that the rape exemption be limited to "forcible rape." This would rule out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible. For example: If a 13-year-old girl is impregnated by a 24-year-old adult, she would no longer qualify to have Medicaid pay for an abortion. (Smith's spokesman did not respond to a call and an email requesting comment.)

Only after pressure did they drop it.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/republican-plan-redefine-rape-abortion

Perhaps a bit overzealous in the interests of saving the tax payers money.

Mother Jones, Icky? I thought you always looked for the neutral sites.

[badger]

You are making ZERO sense. SEC and tigers? Really?

It's a Missouri guy. Get it now? Auburn+LSU+Missouri=Tiger three-way in the SEC.


You people take any liberal and claim every liberal suports him or her - IE john edwards. Now when a US CONGRESSMAN just makes up ignorant sh!t you act like don't apply the same standard as you do to the left.
"you people." let that sink in a bit.

Now your next part: "claim every liberal suports him or her - IE john edwards"

I challenge you to find where anyone anywhere on here said that every Dem supports John Edwards. Me constantly bashing the guy for cheating on his cancer-stricken wife while trying to become president does not count.

Rape is too serious of a topic for it to become political.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

This guy is so out to lunch, I wonder if he was durnk or having an epileptic seizure when he made those statements? I cannot believe anyone would say that and have any real meaning to it. I think this guy is so damaged now, he needs to resign the campaign and let someone else run. What a retard, even if he did misspeak as he claims. I can see every TV commercial now that McCaskill would run. Heck (for that Prague, OK principal), she doesn't even need to speak another word for the rest of the campaign if this guy stays in...

[hawaii 5-0]

Pathetic that anyone would come to the support of this Caveman.

He should not be allowed to represent people.

5-0

[okie52]

Pathetic that anyone would come to the support of this Caveman.

He should not be allowed to represent people.

5-0

Oh, the shame!!!!!

[badger]

Pathetic that anyone would come to the support of this Caveman.

He should not be allowed to represent people.

5-0

He probably won't after this election, as I assume Misery doesn't allow people to run for the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate at the same time (then again, Liberman once ran for Senate and Veep at the same time, hehe).

This is election-ending material, what this guy uttered. The other guy is going to have to come out and say "I love Castro" or something at this point to undo what this guy said.

The latest media report is that the guy has gone into hiding. Probably trying to conjure up some excuse for why he misunderstood the question, the quote was taken out of context, etc.

If he was running in Oklahoma, would I vote for him? No, but that doesn't mean that I would vote for the other guy. You can leave a ballot mostly blank and still have it counted here, from my understanding.

[KantoSooner]

Doesn't Akins sit on a science subcommittee?

It took a minute for the full bitter humor of that fact to sink in. Sort of like Libya under Ghadaffi chairing the UN committee on human rights.

[diverdog]

Doesn't Akins sit on a science subcommittee?

It took a minute for the full bitter humor of that fact to sink in. Sort of like Libya under Ghadaffi chairing the UN committee on human rights.


We are so screwed in this country. It seems that the only qualification people need to run for office is to be dumber than whale sh*t on the ocean floor.

[ictsooner7]

We are so screwed in this country. It seems that the only qualification people need to run for office is to be dumber than whale sh*t on the ocean floor.

I agree, but it is the republican position. It turns out that Paul Ryan consponsered the bill in the house defining "forcible rape"

http://www.mediaite.com/online/akin-bad-paul-ryans-forcible-rape-bill-co-sponsor-drags-him-into-daylight/

Akin Bad: Paul Ryan’s ‘Forcible Rape’ Bill Co-Sponsor Drags Him Into Daylight

As reprehensible as they are, current US Congressman and possible US Senator Rep. Todd Akin‘s (R-MO) remarks on the medical effects of “legitimate rape” are a gift to voters, who will now be exposed to the truth about vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who co-sponsored a bill that insisted on an abortion exception only in cases of “forcible rape.”
The remarks also shine a light on the Romney/Ryan ticket’s competing views on rape and reproductive freedom, issues that might otherwise have been overlooked.

In case you missed it, Akin told an interviewer that pregnancy resulting from rape is “really rare” because “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

The medical basis for Akin’s statement appears to be a recently-published study from The New England Journal of Todd Akin’s ***, but the subtext is that not all rapes are created equal, an idea that was nearly codified into law by Akin and Rep. Paul Ryan, along with 216 other Republicans (and 10 Democrats!).

H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, originally contained language restricting the exception for federally-funded abortions to “an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest,” and offered no further clarification of the term. On its face, the law would have eliminated statutory rape (on the premise that, what? That ten year-old clearly was into it?), but also left open the possibility that rapes involving drugging, or even rapes that did not result in serious enough injuries to the victim, would fail to fit the definition. He held a gun to your head? Where’s the gun? Did you check to see if it was loaded?

Under tremendous public pressure, they dropped the “forcible rape” language before passing the measure 251-175. It’s currently several Republican senators and a President away from becoming law.

Regardless of your beliefs about abortion rights, this bill demonstrates how Republicans (well, 216 of them) feel about women and girls.

Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was quick to link Ryan with Akin, in an email to supporters late last night, and while Akin’s remarks are undoubtedly a political gift for the Democrats, they are even more of a gift to voters, who deserve to know what kind of people they’re being asked to put in the Oval Office, and a heartbeat away from it. Here are a few of the things they can learn from this.

Mitt Romney’s First Reaction Was To ‘Disagree’ With Akin

You wouldn’t know it from reading this site’s resident conservative, but Mitt Romney’s first reaction to Rep. Akin’s comments wasn’t that they were “insulting, inexcusable, and, frankly, wrong,” or even “offensive.”

No, the Romney campaign’s first reaction was to release a statement that said ”Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement, and a Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

It wasn’t until the following day, after a blistering wave of public revulsion, that Romney decided this was more than a “tomato/tomahto” deal, and his initial weak statement disappeared down the conservative memory hole. This is only a slight step up from Romney’s reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s attacks on women who use birth control as “sluts,” wherein Romney was pressed to say “That’s not the language I would have used.”

Faced with a chance to distance himself from the most insane (yet 216-congressman-strong mainstream) elements in his party, and his response was to “disagree.”

Paul Ryan Has A More Consistent Position On Abortion Than Mitt Romney

I’m not referring to Romney’s evolution from staunch pro-choicer to whatever he is now, but to the Romney/Ryan schism on “personhood.” Both men support laws that would define “personhood” as occurring at conception, which would criminalize all abortion and most birth control, but we now know that only Romney believes that a conception resulting from rape or incest should be excluded. Based on the logic of personhood laws, though, that means that Romney thinks it is okay to kill a person whose father was a rapist.

Paul Ryan, on the other hand, believes that a woman who is on birth control, who is then raped, is a murderer, even if she fails to become pregnant (or rather, because she fails to become pregnant). That’s true of his position whether she’s using emergency contraception after the fact, or regular hormonal birth control before.

It’s a completely insane position, but it is consistent. It also means that, if a President Romney becomes unable to serve, Paul Ryan will be signing laws for a possibly Republican-controlled House and Senate, and will likely be appointing Supreme Court justices.

Mitt Romney’s Position On Abortion Is Also Completely Insane

It should be remembered that, although not quite as crazy as Paul Ryan’s, Mitt Romney’s position on abortion is that any woman who seeks an abortion or hormonal birth control, unless she is coincidentally being raped, or unless delivering a child would kill her, is a murderer. Ditto almost anyone who uses in vitro fertilization. That’s what personhood laws say, and Romney supports them.

These are among a host of issues that the Romney campaign would rather not be talking about, but Rep. Akin has guaranteed that the insane Romney/Ryan positions on rape and reproductive rights will dominate political news for at least a week, and while that may please the extreme anti-abortion right, it exposes the ticket to withering scrutiny from everyone else. As a result, Rep. Todd Akin, ironically, just might become the best thing that happened for women in this election.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I thought he was talking about legitimate rap. Like if you listen to legitimate rap it flushes all the bad stuff out. If you listen to illegitimate rap like Flo Rida it forces you to retain all the bad stuff.




Seriously, I got nuthin.

[okie52]

Doesn't Akins sit on a science subcommittee?

It took a minute for the full bitter humor of that fact to sink in. Sort of like Libya under Ghadaffi chairing the UN committee on human rights.

Or Henry Waxman and Ed Markey:


Waxman is the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Markey is the chairman of that committee's Energy and Power Subcommittee.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

5-0 I can name quite a few people that shouldn't be representin' - on both sides of the aisle. Neither side has a monopoly there.

[rock on sooner]

or maybe lighen up on the lighs

Fingers are faster than my keyboard, nice catch X!

[rock on sooner]

THA,he wasn't drunk or ill, saw the clip four different times and
he looked stone, cold sober to me.
Badg, you mentioned running for two offices at same time, yup,
Lieberman did it and so is Ryan this time around.

The Pubs real concern is that Akin would probably cost them the
chance to take the Senate this year, that's the only reason they
want him to back out of the race. If he sticks around the Pubs'
War against Women will stay front and center, especially since
Ryan tried to codify rape a few years ago.

[KantoSooner]

Okie52,
I'm an equal opportunity holder in contempt. I think Waxman and Wasserman-Shultz-Sacco-Vanzetti and numbers of other Democrats are sull of fhit. In point of fact, I find the philosophical bedrock of the Democratic party, a valuing of the collective over the individual to be indistinguishable from communism and abhorent.
None of that, however, gives Republicans a free pass. This Akins dude had not shown up on my radar prior to yesterday. It is apparent, however, that he's borderline retarded. Did he attend any school whatsoever? Can he read? And there are others in the GOP, like Jim Inhoff, who reached their Peter Principle apogee of accomplishment decades ago and now reside in some eating-soup-with-their-fingers upper ring of hell where those too feeble minded to be responsible for their actions are sent to await death from extreme prunation.

We've always had whacko's in our national assemblies. Think of Strom Thurmond. Think of Barney Frank. Think of Dick Nixon or George Wallace or Dennis Kucinich (sp?). But we've generally also had Everitt Dirksons and Jerry Fords and Nelson Rockefellers and Lyndon Johnsons and George Bush Sr.s and Sam Rayburns, etc, etc. I'm sure there are more of that ilk in Washington than I could name, but dayum, the political gene pool sure seems to be getting shallow these days.


And the water has a funny smell to it.

[ictsooner7]

Or Henry Waxman and Ed Markey:

What does Henry Waxman and Ed Markey have to do with this guy spouting ignorance and lying? Always from the right, first thing you do is run someone from the left out as an example of both sides do it. I have not seen any democrats say - abortions for everyone.

[ictsooner7]

Okie52,
I'm an equal opportunity holder in contempt. I think Waxman and Wasserman-Shultz-Sacco-Vanzetti and numbers of other Democrats are sull of fhit. In point of fact, I find the philosophical bedrock of the Democratic party, a valuing of the collective over the individual to be indistinguishable from communism and abhorent.
None of that, however, gives Republicans a free pass. This Akins dude had not shown up on my radar prior to yesterday. It is apparent, however, that he's borderline retarded. Did he attend any school whatsoever? Can he read? And there are others in the GOP, like Jim Inhoff, who reached their Peter Principle apogee of accomplishment decades ago and now reside in some eating-soup-with-their-fingers upper ring of hell where those too feeble minded to be responsible for their actions are sent to await death from extreme prunation.

We've always had whacko's in our national assemblies. Think of Strom Thurmond. Think of Barney Frank. Think of Dick Nixon or George Wallace or Dennis Kucinich (sp?). But we've generally also had Everitt Dirksons and Jerry Fords and Nelson Rockefellers and Lyndon Johnsons and George Bush Sr.s and Sam Rayburns, etc, etc. I'm sure there are more of that ilk in Washington than I could name, but dayum, the political gene pool sure seems to be getting shallow these days.


And the water has a funny smell to it.

I find the philosophical bedrock of the Democratic party, a valuing of the collective over the individual to be indistinguishable from communism and abhorent. Do you not understand the guy from foxnews who started this whole obama is a socialist does not even believe it himself? You have bought the whole repub line. Explain to me how raising taxes on taxable income over $250k a year by 4 points is communism?

[SoonerLaw09]

I'll say this for the Dems: By and large, they stick up for their people when one of them makes a politically embarrassing statement that clearly wasn't meant the way it's being spun. Repubs, OTOH, usually are real quick to jettison the poor SOB rather than stand up for their own. Repubs have been allowing the left to define them for so long, that as a group they are deathly afraid of anything that might even remotely contribute to the "coldhearted bastard" stereotype that the Dems continue to perpetuate.

What I'd like to see is something along the lines of what the Dems said to the Biden "chains" comment: "He didn't mean it that way, it's obvious, no big deal, these aren't the droids you're looking for, move along." It's obvious the guy used the wrong word. Most people know that every single state differentiates between types of rape. Now the biological stuff he mentioned I have never heard before, and I call BS on that. But his point was a valid one: pregnancy after forcible rape (as opposed to statutory where the act itself is consensual, and it's just the age or relationship of the parties that renders consent legally impossible) is rare, but if it does happen, it makes no sense to execute the innocent child for the adult's crime. 1st degree rape ought to be a capital offense for the rapist, not one of the victims.

[ictsooner7]

I'll say this for the Dems: By and large, they stick up for their people when one of them makes a politically embarrassing statement that clearly wasn't meant the way it's being spun. Repubs, OTOH, usually are real quick to jettison the poor SOB rather than stand up for their own. Repubs have been allowing the left to define them for so long, that as a group they are deathly afraid of anything that might even remotely contribute to the "coldhearted bastard" stereotype that the Dems continue to perpetuate.

What I'd like to see is something along the lines of what the Dems said to the Biden "chains" comment: "He didn't mean it that way, it's obvious, no big deal, these aren't the droids you're looking for, move along." It's obvious the guy used the wrong word. Most people know that every single state differentiates between types of rape. Now the biological stuff he mentioned I have never heard before, and I call BS on that. But his point was a valid one: pregnancy after forcible rape (as opposed to statutory where the act itself is consensual, and it's just the age or relationship of the parties that renders consent legally impossible) is rare, but if it does happen, it makes no sense to execute the innocent child for the adult's crime. 1st degree rape ought to be a capital offense for the rapist, not one of the victims.

You are smoking crack. "I'll say this for the Dems: By and large, they stick up for their people when one of them makes a politically embarrassing statement that clearly wasn't meant the way it's being spun. " Do you really believe that? Look at joe "you lie" wilson insulting the president, was told not to appologize. Look at everytime rush says some ignorant ****, you people rush to defend him.

Chains sure as hell does not equal women "legitmate rape". This was not a spin nor a misstatement

"From what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," said Akin said of pregnancy caused by rape. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist."

It is an outright blatnet LIE. "pregnancy after forcible rape (as opposed to statutory where the act itself is consensual, and it's just the age or relationship of the parties that renders consent legally impossible) is rare"

FACTS:

If you're looking for hard numbers, the study concludes that the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (12—45), and that an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year. Does 32,000 pregnancies per annum sound "rare" to you? It's not.

Five percent may not sound like much, but the fact is that couples trying to have kids would be ecstatic over a five percent chance of pregnancy per sexual encounter; what's more, a study published in 2003 in the journal Human Nature found that a single act of rape was more than twice as likely to result in pregnancy than an act of consensual sex:

"Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin," write researchers Jon and Tiffani Gottschall, "even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control." [emphasis mine]

Again, here are the numbers: the researchers examined data collected from 405 women between the ages of 12 and 45 who had suffered a single incidence of penile-vaginal rape, and found that 6.4 percent of these women became pregnant. This number leapt to almost 8% when the researchers accounted for women who'd been using birth control (according to New Scientist, US government statistics show that 20% of the women in the sample were likely to have been using the pill or an IUD). A separate study, conducted by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in 2001, found the per-incidence pregnancy rate for a single act of consensual sex to be just 3.1 percent.

http://io9.com/5936157/the-real-science-behind-todd-akins-claim-that-victims-of-legitimate-rape-dont-get-pregnant

and here is where you and him get your "facts":

http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461

damn near word for word...............

[East Coast Bias]

We know a lot of these RW nutjobs don't believe in science,maybe they don't believe in mathematics either, IC?I want one of their biologists to explain how this female process of preventing pregnancy works.Bottom line is-Dems link this to the Pub brand and **** even more women off. Just what they need............

[ictsooner7]

We know a lot of these RW nutjobs don't believe in science,maybe they don't believe in mathematics either, IC?I want one of their biologists to explain how this female process of preventing pregnancy works.Bottom line is-Dems link this to the Pub brand and **** even more women off. Just what they need............

This is not some misstatement, it is their philosophy. They really believe this crap, all in the name of denying legal medical treatment to women. Funny how they conveniently forget when regan legalized abortion in '67 (or'68).

[ictsooner7]

Dude pulls in 9/11, amazing....

He later invoked 9/11 to explain his pro-life views, saying the first responders didn't ask for identification of those they saved because all lives are important.

"They don't check their ID to see whether they're important or not, they just take them to safety and run back for more," he said. "They, by their lives, speak as Americans of what we think about the value of human beings and how much respect we hold people with."

[olevetonahill]

This is not some misstatement, it is their philosophy. They really believe this crap, all in the name of denying legal medical treatment to women. Funny how they conveniently forget when regan legalized abortion in '67 (or'68).

1/2 truths and twists you go kid

Early in 1967, the national debate on abortion was beginning. Democratic California state senator Anthony Beilenson introduced the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", in an effort to reduce the number of "back-room abortions" performed in California.[81] The State Legislature sent the bill to Reagan's desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.[85] About two million abortions would be performed as a result, most because of a provision in the bill allowing abortions for the well-being of the mother.[85] Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor, it would not have been signed. After he recognized what he called the "consequences" of the bill, he announced that he was pro-life.[85] He maintained that position later in his political career, writing extensively about abortion.[86]

[ictsooner7]

1/2 truths and twists you go kid

Early in 1967, the national debate on abortion was beginning. Democratic California state senator Anthony Beilenson introduced the "Therapeutic Abortion Act", in an effort to reduce the number of "back-room abortions" performed in California.[81] The State Legislature sent the bill to Reagan's desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.[85] About two million abortions would be performed as a result, most because of a provision in the bill allowing abortions for the well-being of the mother.[85] Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill, and stated that had he been more experienced as governor, it would not have been signed. After he recognized what he called the "consequences" of the bill, he announced that he was pro-life.[85] He maintained that position later in his political career, writing extensively about abortion.[86]

Truth and twists?

Reagan's desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.

Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill

thank you for making my arguement for me.

[SoonerLaw09]

You are smoking crack.

Your arguments would be a lot more effective if you would avoid the ad hominem invective.

BTW you didn't answer the real issue; i.e., the morality of executing the child for the crime of the father. The number of rape-induced pregnancies is irrelevant to that issue.

Also, in relation to the articles you cited, statistics can be easily manipulated. Your "expert" supports your side, my "expert" supports my side. Yadda, yadda, yadda. How does the study define its terms (i.e. "rape", "consensual", etc.)? One article talks about rape in general, the other about forcible rape. Who funded the study? Did they have an agenda? What was the sample size, methodology, etc.? If two sets of statistics show results inconsistent with each other, there are two possibilities: one of them is right and one is wrong, or they're both wrong. Citing articles does no good without some analysis to go along with it.

[olevetonahill]

Truth and twists?

Reagan's desk where, after many days of indecision, he signed it.

Reagan had been in office for only four months when he signed the bill

thank you for making my arguement for me.

Your only argument is to argue

[ictsooner7]

Your arguments would be a lot more effective if you would avoid the ad hominem invective.

BTW you didn't answer the real issue; i.e., the morality of executing the child for the crime of the father. The number of rape-induced pregnancies is irrelevant to that issue.

You are going to make a sorry lawyer............

"You are smoking crack. "I'll say this for the Dems: By and large, they stick up for their people when one of them makes a politically embarrassing statement that clearly wasn't meant the way it's being spun. " Do you really believe that? Look at joe "you lie" wilson insulting the president, was told not to appologize. Look at everytime rush says some ignorant ****, you people rush to defend him."

I was refering to your claim dem stick up for their people and pubs don't.


So the women should be victimized twice? Nine long months of looking down and being reminded of being raped? You act as if you know when life begins. There is only one who does and it ain't me and it sure as hell ain't you.

Of course on the other hand, you could never get pregnant, rape or not. So why don't you just let the women make their own decisions about their own bodies.

[olevetonahill]

Icky = Leroy Lizard on steroids

[SoonerLaw09]

You are going to make a sorry lawyer............

I have been a lawyer for close to 20 years. You have a habit of mouthing off without all the facts at your disposal. This renders you less credible.


I was refering to your claim dem stick up for their people and pubs don't.

I made a general statement, not an "always/never" statement. And I happen to have some personal experience upon which to draw, as well as that of general observation.


So the women should be victimized twice? Nine long months of looking down and being reminded of being raped? You act as if you know when life begins. There is only one who does and it ain't me and it sure as hell ain't you.

As if the rape victim would be "all better" if the child is murdered too? Do you know how traumatizing abortions can be for the woman? (no, silly question, of course you don't) Why heap trauma upon trauma? Are you saying that the woman *needs* to be reminded that she was raped? Does the rape victim suddenly forget it happened after 9 months? Or does it create psychological scars that last a lot longer, whether the baby lives or not? Who is the more insensitive to women in this conversation?

And as for when life begins, *now* who is using medieval biology to justify his arguments? That stuff about "quickening" of the "fetus" (viability) comes from the Dark Ages, when ultrasounds and modern molecular biology were non-existent. The only way to tell if a woman was carrying a live child was by touch. Now, with 21st century medicine, we know that the heart forms and begins beating by the sixth week of development, and the brain has begun to form by then as well. So by the time the woman realizes she is pregnant, the child is alive as modern science defines it. Of course, being a Christian I believe that God created (and guides) the biological processes involved in human procreation, and that life begins at conception. But even if you leave the Bible aside for the moment, it is indisputable that by the time the child may be observed, it's alive.


Of course on the other hand, you could never get pregnant, rape or not. So why don't you just let the women make their own decisions about their own bodies.

Easy to say that when it's not possible to ask the child if it wants to be killed. The children cannot speak for or defend themselves, so somebody has to do it for them. This is the moral imperative which overrides all others.

[ictsooner7]

I have been a lawyer for close to 20 years. You have a habit of mouthing off without all the facts at your disposal. This renders you less credible.



I made a general statement, not an "always/never" statement. And I happen to have some personal experience upon which to draw, as well as that of general observation.



As if the rape victim would be "all better" if the child is murdered too? Do you know how traumatizing abortions can be for the woman? (no, silly question, of course you don't) Why heap trauma upon trauma? Are you saying that the woman *needs* to be reminded that she was raped? Does the rape victim suddenly forget it happened after 9 months? Or does it create psychological scars that last a lot longer, whether the baby lives or not? Who is the more insensitive to women in this conversation?

And as for when life begins, *now* who is using medieval biology to justify his arguments? That stuff about "quickening" of the "fetus" (viability) comes from the Dark Ages, when ultrasounds and modern molecular biology were non-existent. The only way to tell if a woman was carrying a live child was by touch. Now, with 21st century medicine, we know that the heart forms and begins beating by the sixth week of development, and the brain has begun to form by then as well. So by the time the woman realizes she is pregnant, the child is alive as modern science defines it. Of course, being a Christian I believe that God created (and guides) the biological processes involved in human procreation, and that life begins at conception. But even if you leave the Bible aside for the moment, it is indisputable that by the time the child may be observed, it's alive.



Easy to say that when it's not possible to ask the child if it wants to be killed. The children cannot speak for or defend themselves, so somebody has to do it for them. This is the moral imperative which overrides all others.


soonerlaw09 would indicate you started law school in 09 or were finishing law school in 09.

Like I said, women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, they sure as hell don't need you to tell them what to do.

If you don't like abortion - DON'T ****ING HAVE ONE, otherwise shutup.

[olevetonahill]

soonerlaw09 would indicate you started law school in 09 or were finishing law school in 09.

Like I said, women are perfectly capable of making their own decisions, they sure as hell don't need you to tell them what to do.

If you don't like abortion - DON'T ****ING HAVE ONE, otherwise shutup.
You are a perfect example of the need for retroactive abortions

[Midtowner]

And as for when life begins, *now* who is using medieval biology to justify his arguments? That stuff about "quickening" of the "fetus" (viability) comes from the Dark Ages, when ultrasounds and modern molecular biology were non-existent. The only way to tell if a woman was carrying a live child was by touch. Now, with 21st century medicine, we know that the heart forms and begins beating by the sixth week of development, and the brain has begun to form by then as well. So by the time the woman realizes she is pregnant, the child is alive as modern science defines it.

The reason the two schools of thought are at an impasse is not because of the science. That stuff is irrelevant. We can know what every molecule in the mother, the fetus, the zygote is doing at all given points in time and with that information, we cannot say one way or the other where life begins to a scientific certainty. Any scientist who tells you otherwise is parroting dogma and not fact.


Of course, being a Christian I believe that God created (and guides) the biological processes involved in human procreation, and that life begins at conception. But even if you leave the Bible aside for the moment, it is indisputable that by the time the child may be observed, it's alive.

That you're a Christian is at the heart of your philosophical (let's not use the word "scientific" in such an inappropriate manner) belief. There is no certainty on either side of the debate, only dogma. You can call your dogma whatever you want to make it more palatable. It's still dogma at the end of the day.

Of course we don't have to end our query. There's also a legal element. At what point do we say that the state can intervene in biological processes going on inside the mother and regulate her uterus? That's a pretty scary proposed use of state power and you've got to have a damned good reason to do that. The current framework under Casey does actually allow states to straight up ban abortion at the point of viability, i.e., the point at which, theoretically, the fetus could be removed from the mother and her interest in controlling her own biological functions could be outweighed by the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn. Yes, there's the health of the mother exception that eats the rule.

The fact is that under our Constitution, states don't have to pass silly laws forcing women to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds for what are in most cases fairly simple procedures. The states could simply ban abortions past whatever a sellable point of viability is or even require a certification from the doctor based on real medical inquiries as to whether the fetus was viable. For some odd reason, no state has yet done that in a manner which appears to be able to pass constitutional muster even thought the SCOTUS has spelled it out for them in bright crayon.

After that detour.... what we're dealing with is not scientific fact. It's a matter of opinion. There are a lot of gray areas. Even if ad arguendo, we accept the proposition that the fetus is alive, there needs to be a serious discussion about what it means to be free in this country if we're forcing women to go through unwanted pregnancies and bring unwanted children into the world as a result.

As an aside, I don't know why anyone engages Icky. The guy's just trolling you. Ignore him and you can save on your blood pressure meds.

[ictsooner7]

The reason the two schools of thought are at an impasse is not because of the science. That stuff is irrelevant. We can know what every molecule in the mother, the fetus, the zygote is doing at all given points in time and with that information, we cannot say one way or the other where life begins to a scientific certainty. Any scientist who tells you otherwise is parroting dogma and not fact.



That you're a Christian is at the heart of your philosophical (let's not use the word "scientific" in such an inappropriate manner) belief. There is no certainty on either side of the debate, only dogma. You can call your dogma whatever you want to make it more palatable. It's still dogma at the end of the day.

Of course we don't have to end our query. There's also a legal element. At what point do we say that the state can intervene in biological processes going on inside the mother and regulate her uterus? That's a pretty scary proposed use of state power and you've got to have a damned good reason to do that. The current framework under Casey does actually allow states to straight up ban abortion at the point of viability, i.e., the point at which, theoretically, the fetus could be removed from the mother and her interest in controlling her own biological functions could be outweighed by the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn. Yes, there's the health of the mother exception that eats the rule.

The fact is that under our Constitution, states don't have to pass silly laws forcing women to undergo transvaginal ultrasounds for what are in most cases fairly simple procedures. The states could simply ban abortions past whatever a sellable point of viability is or even require a certification from the doctor based on real medical inquiries as to whether the fetus was viable. For some odd reason, no state has yet done that in a manner which appears to be able to pass constitutional muster even thought the SCOTUS has spelled it out for them in bright crayon.

After that detour.... what we're dealing with is not scientific fact. It's a matter of opinion. There are a lot of gray areas. Even if ad arguendo, we accept the proposition that the fetus is alive, there needs to be a serious discussion about what it means to be free in this country if we're forcing women to go through unwanted pregnancies and bring unwanted children into the world as a result.

As an aside, I don't know why anyone engages Icky. The guy's just trolling you. Ignore him and you can save on your blood pressure meds.

They don't want women to have abortions nor contraception, paid for by the governement or themselves, nor do they want to pay any ATDC. I wish they would make up their minds.

[Midtowner]

Sorry, what is ATDC?

[olevetonahill]

They don't want women to have abortions nor contraception, paid for by the governement or themselves, nor do they want to pay any ATDC. I wish they would make up their minds.

I think the right has been pretty much clear on what their main option is
Its call personal accountability

[olevetonahill]

Sorry, what is ATDC?

Welfare

[Midtowner]

Welfare

I figured, but there are a lot of services offered and I can't know what Republicans are apparently against unless I know what ATDC actually is.

[olevetonahill]

I figured, but there are a lot of services offered and I can't know what Republicans are apparently against unless I know what ATDC actually is.

Im guessing he meant Aid to dependent children

[soonercruiser]

THIS^^^^

The guy is "done"!
McCaskill was done. Now she has a second chance to display her stupidity as well.

[ictsooner7]

Sorry, what is ATDC?

AFCD, my bad......

[soonercruiser]

What does Henry Waxman and Ed Markey have to do with this guy spouting ignorance and lying? Always from the right, first thing you do is run someone from the left out as an example of both sides do it. I have not seen any democrats say - abortions for everyone.

We are merely looking for equal outrage!
Not, LW hypocrisy.
"That is all"!

[ictsooner7]

Im guessing he meant Aid to dependent children

thanks....

[Midtowner]

Im guessing he meant Aid to dependent children

Okay, he meant AFDC. I'd never heard of ATDC and that's likely because there's no such thing.

Also, AFDC was ended in 1996 and replaced by TANF, which is much less expensive and open-ended than AFDC and shockingly, we haven't had whole families starving in the darkness. The maximum payment for an adult and 2 kids in Oklahoma is $292, so we're not talking about something which is going to be helping those 'welfare queens' purchase flatscreens. TANF has built in incentives for people to get back to work if they're able-bodied.

[olevetonahill]

Okay, he meant AFDC. I'd never heard of ATDC and that's likely because there's no such thing.

Also, AFDC was ended in 1996 and replaced by TANF.

I dint say he was right, I just said what I thot he meant , and he even got it wrong the second time he tried

[olevetonahill]

AFCD, my bad......

Ok Now what does AFCD mean ? Always F***ing criminally Delinquent?

[Midtowner]

I dint say he was right, I just said what I thot he meant , and he even got it wrong the second time he tried

He was talking out his rear again. I can't find any Republicans (well mainstream ones) coming out against TANF. In fact, most are citing TANF's funding mechanism, i.e., a block grant to the states to be administered as they see fit as a better mechanism to fund programs like medicaid. I believe that's even part of Paul Ryan's plan.

[ictsooner7]

He was talking out his rear again. I can't find any Republicans (well mainstream ones) coming out against TANF. In fact, most are citing TANF's funding mechanism, i.e., a block grant to the states to be administered as they see fit as a better mechanism to fund programs like medicaid. I believe that's even part of Paul Ryan's plan.

AFDC - TANF...so ya'll like welfare now? are mainstream republican in charge of their party still? NO

[Midtowner]

AFDC - TANF...so ya'll like welfare now? are mainstream republican in charge of their party still? NO

Find anyone seriously suggesting that we do away with TANF and you may have a point. No one is saying that. Quit talking out of your rear.

Also, who is "y'all"? You just went from agreeing with me to lumping me in with the know-nothing folks. Which is it? You're obviously just trolling here and trying to get a reaction from anyone without enough sense to ignore you, which apparently, I don't have enough sense to ignore you tonight.

[olevetonahill]

AFDC - TANF...so ya'll like welfare now? are mainstream republican in charge of their party still? NO

Still twisting **** around to suit yer self I see. Yo go girl

[olevetonahill]

Find anyone seriously suggesting that we do away with TANF and you may have a point. No one is saying that. Quit talking out of your rear.

Also, who is "y'all"?

If they keep it a Temporary deal Im ok with it
It was when the Kids grew up having babies and staying on the **** from the cradle to the grave
**** em let em get out and root hog or die

[ictsooner7]

He was talking out his rear again. I can't find any Republicans (well mainstream ones) coming out against TANF. In fact, most are citing TANF's funding mechanism, i.e., a block grant to the states to be administered as they see fit as a better mechanism to fund programs like medicaid. I believe that's even part of Paul Ryan's plan.

How about Women, Infants and Children program?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-gop-wants-to-cut-food-stamps-1-3

[Midtowner]

If they keep it a Temporary deal Im ok with it
It was when the Kids grew up having babies and staying on the **** from the cradle to the grave
**** em let em get out and root hog or die

In the anecdotal cases I've seen, where benefit abuse really occurs is with social security disability. I've sat across the desk from several folks who seemed 100% a-ok and came to find out they were on 100% disability for something like "slow learning." It's bull**** that's a disability. If they can sing "ding fries are done" they need to be working.

There are also a myriad of other ways folks game the system. It's sad too. Those with no experience at doing that sort of thing, or worse, women who depend on a man for income in abusive relationships make too much on paper to qualify for benefits.

Something I'd really like to see is to see the government start sizable paying bounties to folks who report welfare fraud--a free market approach to a serious problem that bureaucracy has been unable to address.

[ictsooner7]

Find anyone seriously suggesting that we do away with TANF and you may have a point. No one is saying that. Quit talking out of your rear.

Also, who is "y'all"? You just went from agreeing with me to lumping me in with the know-nothing folks. Which is it? You're obviously just trolling here and trying to get a reaction from anyone without enough sense to ignore you, which apparently, I don't have enough sense to ignore you tonight.

I should have been more general, I should have said welfare, but i was trying to make a point about about not wanting to support the kids that would come from ending abortion. I tried to cut too fine of a point. I agree with you when you make a good point, lump you in when you say the mainstream is running the party. Remember, I am from Kansas where if you are not to the right of atilla the hun you are a commie liberal.

[Midtowner]

How about Women, Infants and Children program?

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/ap-gop-wants-to-cut-food-stamps-1-3

Well you said TANF. Are you not able to find any attacks on TANF? Of course conservatives are against expanding welfare benefits. We can't afford them. Where conservatives go wrong is that we also cannot afford to have taxes as low as they are when we're maintaining a military the size of the one we've got, fight two wars and have all of the government services and infrastructure that we have. Of course liberals want to get all of the money with a tax on the rich, which we need to do, but we have to cut things as well.

So we've arrived at a politically expedient impasse in an election year where both sides can point at the other and blame it on them--and both sides will be right.

WIC probably shouldn't be a target. WIC is a benefit awarded to low income families with children under the age of 5. Cut WIC and you're literally stealing candy from a baby. That's a mistake. I'd take a closer look at SNAP before WIC, but really, messing with food assistance programs aimed at feeding kids is victimizing a voiceless and innocent group of people.

[ictsooner7]

In the anecdotal cases I've seen, where benefit abuse really occurs is with social security disability. I've sat across the desk from several folks who seemed 100% a-ok and came to find out they were on 100% disability for something like "slow learning." It's bull**** that's a disability. If they can sing "ding fries are done" they need to be working.

There are also a myriad of other ways folks game the system. It's sad too. Those with no experience at doing that sort of thing, or worse, women who depend on a man for income in abusive relationships make too much on paper to qualify for benefits.

Something I'd really like to see is to see the government start sizable paying bounties to folks who report welfare fraud--a free market approach to a serious problem that bureaucracy has been unable to address.

I have a nephew who is on disablity from a car wreck, with insurance limites and not wanting to bankrupts his best freinds family who was killed in the wreck, the best freind was driving, he didn't near enough to live the rest of his life on. Seeing him come home and cry, he was 25-26, because he was trying so hard to learn a basic job and not being able too killed me, so there is good and bad with disablity.

[ictsooner7]

Well you said TANF. Are you not able to find any attacks on TANF? Of course conservatives are against expanding welfare benefits. We can't afford them. Where conservatives go wrong is that we also cannot afford to have taxes as low as they are when we're maintaining a military the size of the one we've got, fight two wars and have all of the government services and infrastructure that we have. Of course liberals want to get all of the money with a tax on the rich, which we need to do, but we have to cut things as well.

So we've arrived at a politically expedient impasse in an election year where both sides can point at the other and blame it on them--and both sides will be right.

WIC probably shouldn't be a target. WIC is a benefit awarded to low income families with children under the age of 5. Cut WIC and you're literally stealing candy from a baby. That's a mistake. I'd take a closer look at SNAP before WIC, but really, messing with food assistance programs aimed at feeding kids is victimizing a voiceless and innocent group of people.

A lot of us on the left don't want it expanded either. My question is always, what is the rights alternative? They don't want unions or minimum wage laws to rasie incomes. They want to cut funding to public schools. It is either have one or the other.

[Midtowner]

A lot of us on the left don't want it expanded either. My question is always, what is the rights alternative? They don't want unions or minimum wage laws to rasie incomes. They want to cut funding to public schools. It is either have one or the other.

Some of them do, some of them don't.

Neither the left nor the right have come up with a viable alternative where they compromise some of what they want. Until we can back off of the 'no taxes' pledge (and Sen. Coburn agrees!) we aren't having a serious discussion.

Nor are we having a serious discussion until we're willing to talk entitlement reform.

[MamaMia]

Says it then tries to backtrack saying he "misspoke", this guy is a US congressmen, you righties must be proud................

Do you agree with absolutely every single thing all the members of your party affiliation say or believe, or feel that you should be held personally accountable?

[diverdog]

Out of a woman's cycle, if you picked a random day of sex, you would have about a 10% chance that she would be fertile that day.

A woman that is raped does not go thru the normal sexual response. She does not have the vaginal congestion and other physiological changes that enhance pregnancy. So, the 10% chance would be lower(the politician was somewhat right in his statement). Add in that a ton of women take birth control and the chance of a rape pregnancy would be even lower.

Obviously a rape study is hard to do. But based on just the percentages, I find it hard to believe that rape results in pregnancy 5% of the time.

Basically, this study is saying that rape pregnancy occurs at a higher rate than statistically it should.


Tenn it doesn't matter. If a woman is raped she should be able to abort the baby.
Think about it if it were your daughter and she was violently raped by some of these men you see on the news. Would you want her to be reminded every day for 9 months that she was raped until she gave birth to the baby? Do you think she would love that baby? What if it lookted like the dad? In this case we should all defer to the victims judgement on what to do with the baby and support her decision.

[diverdog]

I have a nephew who is on disablity from a car wreck, with insurance limites and not wanting to bankrupts his best freinds family who was killed in the wreck, the best freind was driving, he didn't near enough to live the rest of his life on. Seeing him come home and cry, he was 25-26, because he was trying so hard to learn a basic job and not being able too killed me, so there is good and bad with disablity.

Drug test all SSI beneficaries and you will vastly reduce the rolls of people getting SSI. There are people like your friend who need it but there are a lot of low lifes who are nothing more than druggies who need to be thrown off SSI.

[ictsooner7]

Do you agree with absolutely every single thing all the members of your party affiliation say or believe, or feel that you should be held personally accountable?

OK again, this is not some member affilated with my party, this is a sitting US congressmen running for US senate expanding upon YOUR partys belief. Your party tried two years ago to make limit abortions to only "forcible" rape and now your vp candidate was the co-sponser of the bill!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/20/1122153/-Todd-Akin-clarifies-he-s-on-the-same-page-as-Paul-Ryan-on-forcible-rape

[ictsooner7]

No change in the one point lead after he said - "The Missouri thing just speaks to hyper partisanship - Republicans don't even really like Akin but they'll vote for him over McCaskill," PPP said on Twitter. What a sad, sad party...

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/political-fix/poll-shows-todd-akin-with-one-point-lead-as-gop/article_5a8f74b2-eadf-11e1-8c55-001a4bcf6878.html

[olevetonahill]

OK again, this is not some member affilated with my party, this is a sitting US congressmen running for US senate expanding upon YOUR partys belief. Your party tried two years ago to make limit abortions to only "forcible" rape and now your vp candidate was the co-sponser of the bill!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/20/1122153/-Todd-Akin-clarifies-he-s-on-the-same-page-as-Paul-Ryan-on-forcible-rape

Hey Icky
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/2008/12/idiots.jpg

[ictsooner7]

Hey Icky
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/2008/12/idiots.jpg

What did I say that is not true?

[Midtowner]

What did I say that is not true?

1) There is such a thing as AFTC.
2) That Republicans want to cut a program now that was replaced with TANF in 1996.
3) That Republicans are looking to cut TANF.
4) The insinuation that anyone is seriously looking at going after WIC.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

icky's well informed. He gets his marching orders from Rachel Maddow and dailykos and comes over here to barf them all over this message board.

[ictsooner7]

1) There is such a thing as AFTC.
2) That Republicans want to cut a program now that was replaced with TANF in 1996.
3) That Republicans are looking to cut TANF.
4) The insinuation that anyone is seriously looking at going after WIC.



Your party doesn't want to cut welfare? It does not believe there is a difference between rape and forcible rape?

[KantoSooner]

At the risk of starting yet another bellowing contest, let's take a fresh look at this thing. The uproar over Akins' comment is, in large part, because of his use of the word 'legitimate'. He was speaking in a bit of code, but we all know what he was saying and that is that most 'rapes' are not 'rapes' but cases of the woman changing her mind after the fact.
And then he goes on to pander to a mysticism holding that natural biological functions can be suspended or changed due to the legal/moral judgement of a particular society at a particular moment in history. Through what agency, I think we all know. The Big Guy.
Thus, once you unpack Akins oddball assertion you're left with.
1. Most 'rape' is really just the little women being irresponsible and then embarrassed at their weakness against lust.
2. Since women's bodies can tell when it's rape and since God wouldn't allow an illegitimate pregnancy, any intercourse resulting in pregnancy simply can't be rape.
Therefore, we need not worry too much about this philosophically troubling case in debating abortion rights because it simply doesn't happen.

The degradation of women to mere vessels of hormones, the rejection of something close to all we have put together regarding biology in the last 3,000 years and the reliance upon arguments breathtaking in their circularity would individually move Akins over into the category of dimwitted crank. Together they rank him very close to the insane.

[badger]

I hate that a crime such as rape is getting politicized. I can't imagine how victims of rape felt when they heard about Rep. Akins' comments and how they feel now that both political parties are using it as a talking point. Vomit. Gag. Boo. Hiss. All of the above.

He's probably holding on for a cushy post-office position, which he will probably get in order to end the embarrassment for the Republican Party. His political career is over regardless, so it's just a matter of time before his name is outta the news, either due to stepping down from the election or getting legitimately defeated in November.

[ictsooner7]

I hate that a crime such as rape is getting politicized. I can't imagine how victims of rape felt when they heard about Rep. Akins' comments and how they feel now that both political parties are using it as a talking point. Vomit. Gag. Boo. Hiss. All of the above.

He's probably holding on for a cushy post-office position, which he will probably get in order to end the embarrassment for the Republican Party. His political career is over regardless, so it's just a matter of time before his name is outta the news, either due to stepping down from the election or getting legitimately defeated in November.

OVER? He still has a point lead.

And it's not both sides, the gop brought it up.

[badger]

OVER? He still has a point lead.

And it's not both sides, the gop brought it up.

A point lead in a poll somewhere? Would anyone admit to supporting him now? Not saying they wouldn't vote for him in a private voting booth, but at this stage, they'd probably utter "UNDECIDED!" before saying they'd vote for him.

And saying which side brought it up is like the two kids fighting and one tells teacher "HE started it!" Don't care who brought it up. Rape is not a political issue, it is a criminal issue.

[olevetonahill]

What did I say that is not true?

I've NEVER heard you say the truth once.

[ictsooner7]

A point lead in a poll somewhere? Would anyone admit to supporting him now? Not saying they wouldn't vote for him in a private voting booth, but at this stage, they'd probably utter "UNDECIDED!" before saying they'd vote for him.

And saying which side brought it up is like the two kids fighting and one tells teacher "HE started it!" Don't care who brought it up. Rape is not a political issue, it is a criminal issue.


WOW.....you really have drank the kool-aid. It was the stl paper, i posted a link previous, look it up. This is rebublicans favorite whine - they both do it. No, your party does it, it is in your platform - no execptions for rape and this is the justification of it. YOUR party tried to push it through since the teaparty took control of your party.

I didn't see the dem in the race talking about until this idiot brought it up. Did you?

[badger]

WOW.....you really have drank the kool-aid.
<sigh> there's no reasoning with you.


It was the stl paper, i posted a link previous, look it up.
Already did, I doubt that the poll gave the news enough time to sink in. poll them again in a few days. or, realize that polls don't vote and generally aren't all that reliable (for example, how many people here still regularly use a home landline phone?)


This is rebublicans favorite whine - they both do it.
Once again I don't care if one does it or both do it, no excuses this should NOT be a political issue.


YOUR party tried to push it through since the teaparty took control of your party.
Once again, I only register as a Republican so that I can participate in primaries in this state. The moment Oklahoma has open primaries I'm registering as an independent.


I didn't see the dem in the race talking about until this idiot brought it up. Did you?
I don't know about the rest of you, but does anyone give a crap about other states' elected officials most of the time? So no, I didn't see the dem in the race at all until now. No wonder the GOP targeted her seat for ouster-of-the-incumbent... at least till now. Democrats and Republicans generally only go after the weakest incumbents, especially when it comes to the U.S. Senate. Six-year terms generally protect the incumbents pretty well from challengers.

[Soonerjeepman]

Are you sure?

Cause this is is what the facts say when I just do a basic google search:



http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(96)70141-2/abstract

the PROBLEM is the 47% receive no medical attention after the assault...we still treat the VICTIM like the perpetrator. The Catholic church is fine with a "clean" after such a case. (sorry, think it's called a DNC..? ) and YES I'm pro-life.

I'm totally against Akins running for office...what an idiot...he NEEDS to step down so we can get McCaskill out of office.

As far as the conservatives "lumping" all liberals together when someone does something stupid ya got to be kidding me if you can't SEE the liberals do the same thing...it's a joke on BOTH sides.

[Soonerjeepman]

A point lead in a poll somewhere? Would anyone admit to supporting him now? Not saying they wouldn't vote for him in a private voting booth, but at this stage, they'd probably utter "UNDECIDED!" before saying they'd vote for him.

And saying which side brought it up is like the two kids fighting and one tells teacher "HE started it!" Don't care who brought it up. Rape is not a political issue, it is a criminal issue.

actually I was surprised at the news in KC, they had their FB up and the 3 replies they showed all still supported Akins...I was really shocked.

[badger]

actually I was surprised at the news in KC, they had their FB up and the 3 replies they showed all still supported Akins...I was really shocked.

You seem familiar with the race... what, exactly, has the incumbent done or not done to be targeted by the GOP as an incumbent to ouster? Yes, all incumbents of the opposing party are targeted for ouster at varying degrees, but this race seemed especially important to the GOP before now.

Did she not support Misery's move to the SEC?

Did she support Obamacare a little bit too enthusiastically?

Did she fail in her reenactment of the Adventures of Tom Sawyer?

Did she suggest that, rather than just let tax cuts expire that taxes might actually have to be raised?

Did she forget the lyrics to "Meet me in Saint Louie Louis?"

Did she sell the Arch to Nazi Commies?

Did she not cheer loudly enough when the Cardinals won the World Series?

Did someone catch her drinking a beer that wasn't produced by Anheiser-Busch?

[Soonerjeepman]

You seem familiar with the race... what, exactly, has the incumbent done or not done to be targeted by the GOP as an incumbent to ouster? Yes, all incumbents of the opposing party are targeted for ouster at varying degrees, but this race seemed especially important to the GOP before now.

Did she not support Misery's move to the SEC?

Did she support Obamacare a little bit too enthusiastically?

Did she fail in her reenactment of the Adventures of Tom Sawyer?

Did she suggest that, rather than just let tax cuts expire that taxes might actually have to be raised?

Did she forget the lyrics to "Meet me in Saint Louie Louis?"

Did she sell the Arch to Nazi Commies?

Did she not cheer loudly enough when the Cardinals won the World Series?

Did someone catch her drinking a beer that wasn't produced by Anheiser-Busch?

lol...good ones...
I live in KS so I haven't really looked into her policies, I do know the knock is she's a puppet for Obama...voted yes on everything he has done like a good Dem. Guessing she hasn't really come up with much herself and prob the Pub's see her as a target, not sure what her margin of victory was last time. I know an adviser for Pat Roberts in Ks, he said she is someone they want out.

[diverdog]

Where did i say i was anti abortion? I'm just pointing out that the study is flawed. In addition, while being stupid enough to touch the subject, he technically wasn't physiologically wrong in what he said. I also don't think he knew where he was technically correct.

Fair enough.

[MamaMia]

OK again, this is not some member affilated with my party, this is a sitting US congressmen running for US senate expanding upon YOUR partys belief. Your party tried two years ago to make limit abortions to only "forcible" rape and now your vp candidate was the co-sponser of the bill!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/20/1122153/-Todd-Akin-clarifies-he-s-on-the-same-page-as-Paul-Ryan-on-forcible-rape

This is yet another perfect example of twisting the facts to avoid answering a simple question. This thread is based on the ridiculous.

[rock on sooner]

actually I was surprised at the news in KC, they had their FB up and the 3 replies they showed all still supported Akins...I was really shocked.

I saw an interview on CNN with some Miserians...one was female
and she that she still supported him. "He said he misspoke and
I believe him." Honest, that was a direct quote!

[ictsooner7]

This is yet another perfect example of twisting the facts to avoid answering a simple question. This thread is based on the ridiculous.

What facts did i twist?

[badger]

I saw an interview on CNN with some Miserians...one was female
and she that she still supported him. "He said he misspoke and
I believe him." Honest, that was a direct quote!

What I believe is that he really, really wishes that he didn't say what he did... but I'm not sure that's the same as "misspoke."

If he truly misspoke, he should suggest some remedy for victims of rape and promote the hell out of it (please don't withhold my diploma for saying "hell," hehe).

Ideas for the well-being of the child:
1- Paying for the pregnant rape victim's pre-natal and hospital care through delivery (since he is anti-abortion)
2- Matching pregnant rape victims with potential future parents for adoption (if the victim wants the child adopted rather than keeping it)

Ideas for the rape victims and rape prevention:
1- Taxpayer-funded (or non-profit sponsored, but endorsed by the state) counseling programs.
2- Subsidized or free women's self defense classes (also a way to fight our growing obesity problem!)

Ideas to discourage rape:
1- The death penalty.
2- Castration or vasectomies.

OK, so neither of those are happening.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

The guy's an idiot and should back out of the race immediately. If anybody votes for this guy, I'll assume that it's because Claire McKaskill(sp?) is the stupidest **** to ever put on panty hose. Either way Missouri deserves either one of these people.

[okie52]

I saw an interview on CNN with some Miserians...one was female
and she that she still supported him. "He said he misspoke and
I believe him." Honest, that was a direct quote!

Now you know how I feel when I hear Obama's speak of energy independence.

[KantoSooner]

One thing about it, with Kansas and Misery right next door, and Texas and Lousyanna to the south, Oklahoma and Arkansas are starting to look like elitist intellectual enclaves. Veritable islands of sanity in a world gone mad.

Who'd've ever thunk of that?

Oklahoma, the Massachusetts of the South!

I jest, of course, although that would make one hilarious T-shirt.

[badger]

I have been unsuccessful so far in my many attempts to derail this thread, but here goes on attempt 9,001:

Reasons why Claire McKaskill isn't a shoo-in, according to Wikipedia:

#1:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Claire_McCaskill%2C_Official_portrait%2C_112th_Con gress.jpg/220px-Claire_McCaskill%2C_Official_portrait%2C_112th_Con gress.jpg

Ok, ok, sorry. Real reasons forthcoming...

#1: This is her first term and first-term incumbents are usually the most vulnerable incumbents.

#2: She's against the use of earmarks and pork barrel spending, and with Russ Feingold she is one of only two Democratic senators that have sworn not to use earmarks. You might think that this is a good thing, but it is Misery-ians that elect her and Misery-ians that would benefit from her earmarks if she wasn't against them.

#3: Obama connection: She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House, but was never seriously considered.

#4: Obama connection: She introduced legislation with then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) after the Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal erupted which demanded the full accountability of wounded veterans and agencies that would ensure physical and mental health conditions being addressed.

#5: Obama connection: In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so.

#6: On March 16, 2011, McCaskill told reporters that she was "embarrassed" about revelations that her office had used taxpayer money for the senator's use of a private airplane she co-owned with her husband and friends. As soon as the story broke, Senator McCaskill sent a check for $88,000 to the U.S. Treasury as reimbursement for the flights.

#7: On March 21, 2011 Politico reported that McCaskill had failed to pay more than $280,000 in property taxes on the plane and was planning to sell it. “I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane,” McCaskill said on a conference call with reporters. “I will never set foot on the plane again.”

#8: McCaskill was married but divorced in 1995, after 11 years of marriage and three kids.

#9: On December 18, 2010, McCaskill voted in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

#10: McCaskill supported health reform legislation; she voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in December 2009, and she voted for the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[21] She was critical of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, which would have placed limits on private funding of abortions in the context of the November 2009 Affordable Health Care for America Act.[

So, in a nutshell:
- She has more ties to President Obama than any conservative or moderate voter would prefer.
- She had issues with a "damn plane"
- She's voted for DADT repeal and Obamacare, which may not be popular with constituents.

Those three things right there are probably what most puts her incumbency in danger. However, please don't confuse this with me caring about Missouri. I have the Grandpa Simpson take on the state:

ZoWc6WRHKEE

[ictsooner7]

I have been unsuccessful so far in my many attempts to derail this thread, but here goes on attempt 9,001:

Reasons why Claire McKaskill isn't a shoo-in, according to Wikipedia:

#1:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Claire_McCaskill%2C_Official_portrait%2C_112th_Con gress.jpg/220px-Claire_McCaskill%2C_Official_portrait%2C_112th_Con gress.jpg

Ok, ok, sorry. Real reasons forthcoming...

#1: This is her first term and first-term incumbents are usually the most vulnerable incumbents.

#2: She's against the use of earmarks and pork barrel spending, and with Russ Feingold she is one of only two Democratic senators that have sworn not to use earmarks. You might think that this is a good thing, but it is Misery-ians that elect her and Misery-ians that would benefit from her earmarks if she wasn't against them.

#3: Obama connection: She had been frequently mentioned as a possible vice presidential choice of Senator Obama in the 2008 run for the White House, but was never seriously considered.

#4: Obama connection: She introduced legislation with then-Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) after the Walter Reed Army Medical Center neglect scandal erupted which demanded the full accountability of wounded veterans and agencies that would ensure physical and mental health conditions being addressed.

#5: Obama connection: In January 2008, Claire McCaskill decided to endorse Senator Barack Obama in his campaign for the Democratic nomination for the presidential elections of 2008, making her one of the first senators to do so.

#6: On March 16, 2011, McCaskill told reporters that she was "embarrassed" about revelations that her office had used taxpayer money for the senator's use of a private airplane she co-owned with her husband and friends. As soon as the story broke, Senator McCaskill sent a check for $88,000 to the U.S. Treasury as reimbursement for the flights.

#7: On March 21, 2011 Politico reported that McCaskill had failed to pay more than $280,000 in property taxes on the plane and was planning to sell it. “I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane,” McCaskill said on a conference call with reporters. “I will never set foot on the plane again.”

#8: McCaskill was married but divorced in 1995, after 11 years of marriage and three kids.

#9: On December 18, 2010, McCaskill voted in favor of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010.

#10: McCaskill supported health reform legislation; she voted for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in December 2009, and she voted for the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[21] She was critical of the Stupak–Pitts Amendment, which would have placed limits on private funding of abortions in the context of the November 2009 Affordable Health Care for America Act.[

So, in a nutshell:
- She has more ties to President Obama than any conservative or moderate voter would prefer.
- She had issues with a "damn plane"
- She's voted for DADT repeal and Obamacare, which may not be popular with constituents.

Those three things right there are probably what most puts her incumbency in danger. However, please don't confuse this with me caring about Missouri. I have the Grandpa Simpson take on the state:

ZoWc6WRHKEE

Typical rightwingnut, ignorant pub lets slip his partys position on abortion and women and you want to talk about his opponent. His appology includes:

"The mistake I made was in the words I said, not in the heart I hold. I ask for your forgiveness."


So......in other words - i meant what i said - i should have used different words.

[ictsooner7]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joxny3rco_4

[East Coast Bias]

Do you agree with absolutely every single thing all the members of your party affiliation say or believe, or feel that you should be held personally accountable?

Well I was embarrassed somewhat by Weiner...

[ictsooner7]

Well I was embarrassed somewhat by Weiner...

who resigned.....

[ictsooner7]

Well, well, well...the ol' mittmister was down with the doctor who came up with this crackpot theory.

WASHINGTON -- After saying he “can’t defend” Rep. Todd Akin’s suggestion that women don’t get pregnant from rape, Mitt Romney stepped up his rebuke on Tuesday when he called on Akin to drop out of the Missouri Senate race. But archives from Romney’s previous presidential bid show that the Massachusetts Republican has historically supported the person who is the source of Akin’s theory, Dr. Jack C. Willke, the father of the antiabortion movement.

A physician and former president of the National Right to Life Committee, Willke was an “important surrogate” for Romney’s 2008 presidential bid. Willke is the oft-cited source of the theory that rape-related pregnancies are “rare.” The theory is sometimes used by antiabortion advocates to argue that abortion laws should not contain exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest.

Willke believes that trauma caused by violent rape causes a woman’s reproductive system to shut down. He presents this belief as fact in educational materials, including a book about abortion and a website called abortionfacts.com. Willke’s views – and his role in promoting a theory that has been widely rejected in modern medicine – appear not to have concerned Romney in 2007, when he touted Willke’s endorsement.


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-doctor-behind-todd-akins-rape-theory-was-a-romney-surrogate-in-2007-20120821,0,80862.story

[olevetonahill]

Hey Ick ya wanta a weenier sammich?

[rock on sooner]

Don't know where to look but I'd like to see the medical community's
rejection of this guy's theory before I debunk what he says. To my
way of thinking, though, Willke's full of it. I didn't know that anyone
even advocated this type of thinking. Just don't believe that one
can mentally tell the body to stop a natural process...state of being
in shock or not....jmo..

[soonercruiser]

Well I was embarrassed somewhat by Weiner...

Me too. Especially the interview on NBC....

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/nn212/SoonerCruiser_photos/Political/weinerinterview.jpg

[REDREX]

who resigned.....--------After lying about it for a week

[Midtowner]

Look.. the wingnuts have gone into shock. They can't defend their guy, so rather than do what the Candidate did and say he's an *** who should have resigned, they're changing the subject to something that's ancient history. Good stuff.

[olevetonahill]

What did I say that is not true?


I've NEVER heard you say the truth once.


I;m still waiting on ya Icky

[C&CDean]

Jeez. Talk about beating a dead equine. Dude stuck his foot in his mouth. Everybody gets it. It ain't like he's the only one. Jeez again icky.

[TitoMorelli]

Jeez. Talk about beating a dead equine. Dude stuck his foot in his mouth. Everybody gets it. It ain't like he's the only one. Jeez again icky.

Given the type of comments Icky usually posts, I think he and the MO Republican are actually related. You know, Todd and Bud.

[Skysooner]

Jeez. Talk about beating a dead equine. Dude stuck his foot in his mouth. Everybody gets it. It ain't like he's the only one. Jeez again icky.

He did more than stick his foot in his mouth. He claims he misspoke (one word "legitimate"). Instead he is trying to push a view of the world that is not only predicated on hardcore religious conservative thinking (see the failed Prohibition experiment), but he has no clue about the science or the psychology of a woman who might be carrying the baby of the man who raped her. Total 'effing moron is what this guy is and how he ever got elected to Congress I'll never know. Oh yes I do. He is from Missouri.

[olevetonahill]

He did more than stick his foot in his mouth. He claims he misspoke (one word "legitimate"). Instead he is trying to push a view of the world that is not only predicated on hardcore religious conservative thinking (see the failed Prohibition experiment), but he has no clue about the science or the psychology of a woman who might be carrying the baby of the man who raped her. Total 'effing moron is what this guy is and how he ever got elected to Congress I'll never know. Oh yes I do. He is from Missouri.

When I sober the fuc* up Ima go look thru evey ****in post YOU ever made here and see If YOU ever misspoke.
Ok? Fair nuff? all that shat?

[Skysooner]

When I sober the fuc* up Ima go look thru evey ****in post YOU ever made here and see If YOU ever misspoke.
Ok? Fair nuff? all that shat?

I'm sure I have. He claimed one word made all the difference. Big difference is he is a US Congressman vying for US Senate. Of course I know you have from multiple examples, and I don't really give a flying f*** what you find.

[okie52]

He did more than stick his foot in his mouth. He claims he misspoke (one word "legitimate"). Instead he is trying to push a view of the world that is not only predicated on hardcore religious conservative thinking (see the failed Prohibition experiment), but he has no clue about the science or the psychology of a woman who might be carrying the baby of the man who raped her. Total 'effing moron is what this guy is and how he ever got elected to Congress I'll never know. Oh yes I do. He is from Missouri.

Missouri's a bad state?

[ictsooner7]

I;m still waiting on ya Icky

I was refering to this statement..

OK again, this is not some member affilated with my party, this is a sitting US congressmen running for US senate expanding upon YOUR partys belief. Your party tried two years ago to make limit abortions to only "forcible" rape and now your vp candidate was the co-sponser of the bill!

Show me what part of this is not true.

[olevetonahill]

I was refering to this statement..

OK again, this is not some member affilated with my party, this is a sitting US congressmen running for US senate expanding upon YOUR partys belief. Your party tried two years ago to make limit abortions to only "forcible" rape and now your vp candidate was the co-sponser of the bill!

Show me what part of this is not true.

I have still not heard you speak the truth

[Skysooner]

Missouri's a bad state?

No, just a little football smack thrown in.

[XingTheRubicon]

Is there a "morning after forcible rape" pill? Maybe we can have these, for free of course, at check cashing places, etc.

Problem solved.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af80/sanjoaquinsooner/pubgenius.jpg

It's the economy stupid. Pubs would sweep if they kept their mouths shut about everything else.

[ictsooner7]

Is there a "morning after forcible rape" pill? Maybe we can have these, for free of course, at check cashing places, etc.

Problem solved.

Your ignorance is insulting. I really hope you haven't procreated, I wouldn't want you sons loose preying on women and I wouldn't want you daughters to think if she gets raped, it's her fault.

[ictsooner7]

http://i995.photobucket.com/albums/af80/sanjoaquinsooner/pubgenius.jpg

It's the economy stupid. Pubs would sweep if they kept their mouths shut about everything else.

Really, how did the last pub regime do? HUH? How did the two guys with PRIVATE INDUSTRY experience do? HUH?

[okie52]

No, just a little football smack thrown in.

Heh, well we don't have Mizzou to kick around anymore.

[badger]

Heh, well we don't have Mizzou to kick around anymore.

I know. Sad face. :(

[okie52]

I know. Sad face. :(

I'm going to miss them a lot more than the Aggies...probably because they have been connected to OU for about 100 years.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

who resigned.....

And is now trying to make a come back in politics... shesss

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Your ignorance is insulting. I really hope you haven't procreated.

Same as you say, I hope you haven't procreated...

Give it a break ICT, the man is on the ballot and now will take a court order to remove. The voters of MO will decide...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I have been unsuccessful so far in my many attempts to derail this thread,

I already tried on page 3, but nobody liked my legitimate rap comment. Come on, legitimate rap. It's funny people!

[ictsooner7]

Same as you say, I hope you haven't procreated...

Give it a break ICT, the man is on the ballot and now will take a court order to remove. The voters of MO will decide...

I wasn't talking to you, but the same sentiment applies to you.

And i have 4 kids, one graduating from law school in the spring, one who graduated college last year and just bought a house, one finishing college this year and one just starting college this week. Bright, smart, educated LIBERALS.

I'd rather have my kids root for Texas than be republicans.

[okie52]

I wasn't talking to you, but the same sentiment applies to you.

And i have 4 kids, one graduating from law school in the spring, one who graduated college last year and just bought a house, one finishing college this year and one just starting college this week. Bright, smart, educated LIBERALS.

I'd rather have my kids root for Texas than be republicans.

How about raising pragmatic, independent thinkers rather than ones that will adhere to a party line or ideology?

[ictsooner7]

How about raising pragmatic, independent thinkers rather than ones that will adhere to a party line or ideology?

People who claim to be pragmatic, independent thinkers are really conservitives pretending to actual listen to actual facts.

[okie52]

People who claim to be pragmatic, independent thinkers are really conservitives pretending to actual listen to actual facts.

Heh heh. Now there's some independent thinking. So the liberals are the pragmatists and have the correct stance on all of the issues?

[XingTheRubicon]

I wasn't talking to you, but the same sentiment applies to you.

And i have 4 kids, one graduating from law school in the spring, one who graduated college last year and just bought a house, one finishing college this year and one just starting college this week. Bright, smart, educated LIBERALS.

I'd rather have my kids root for Texas than be republicans.


I'm honestly finding it hard to believe that anyone would **** you.

[TitoMorelli]

I'm honestly finding it hard to believe that anyone would **** you.

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc27/dweebius/clap2.gifhttp://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc27/dweebius/clap2.gifhttp://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc27/dweebius/clap2.gif

[TitoMorelli]

Heh heh. Now there's some independent thinking. So the liberals are the pragmatists and have the correct stance on all of the issues?

Hey, just look at how many wonderful plans Dems/libs have offered for reducing the debt by spending us into oblivion.

[okie52]

Hey, just look at how many wonderful plans Dems/libs have offered for reducing the debt by spending us into oblivion.

Yep, they've got all of the answers.

[ictsooner7]

Hey, just look at how many wonderful plans Dems/libs have offered for reducing the debt by spending us into oblivion.

Hey, just look at how the dems did on the deficit compaired to the pubs. Dems is lower. Carter lower than Reagan, clinton lower than either bush, obama has the same per year as bush's last year.

[ictsooner7]

Heh heh. Now there's some independent thinking. So the liberals are the pragmatists and have the correct stance on all of the issues?

Liberals don’t regurgitate talking points from junior college dropouts.

[olevetonahill]

I wasn't talking to you, but the same sentiment applies to you.

And i have 4 kids, one graduating from law school in the spring, one who graduated college last year and just bought a house, one finishing college this year and one just starting college this week. Bright, smart, educated LIBERALS.

I'd rather have my kids root for Texas than be republicans.


Now i know you are retarded

[okie52]

Liberals don’t regurgitate talking points from junior college dropouts.

Hmmm....Maxine waters come to mind there Icky? Of course she was a community college einstein.

Stupid isn't exempt by having a college degree.

But you still dodge the question there Icky....you believe liberals are the pragmatists and have the best stances on all of the issues?

[ictsooner7]

Hmmm....Maxine waters come to mind there Icky? Of course she was a community college einstein.

Stupid isn't exempt by having a college degree.

But you still dodge the question there Icky....you believe liberals are the pragmatists and have the best stances on all of the issues?

show me where i have quoted Maxine waters................

[okie52]

show me where i have quoted Maxine waters................

She's a lib there Icky. Have I quoted a Juco dropout?


But you're still dodging the question Icky, do you believe that libs are the pragmatists and have the best stances on all of the issues?

[rock on sooner]

When I sober the fuc* up Ima go look thru evey ****in post YOU ever made here and see If YOU ever misspoke.
Ok? Fair nuff? all that shat?

Vet, jus dont sober up, aint worth it...:biggrin:

[ictsooner7]

She's a lib there Icky. Have I quoted a Juco dropout?


But you're still dodging the question Icky, do you believe that libs are the pragmatists and have the best stances on all of the issues?

rush and beck?

as a matter of fact we do...............

[olevetonahill]

Vet, jus dont sober up, aint worth it...:biggrin:

Yer right bro. I aint gonna swim in his cesspool :sneakiness:

[okie52]

rush and beck?

as a matter of fact we do...............

I have never quoted Rush and I don't remember ever quoting Beck...but that doesn't mean they aren't right on some issues.

Every issue eh Icky? And pragmatists too.

Do we need to go to energy again there Icky to show that pragmatism and superior stance?

[ictsooner7]

I have never quoted Rush and I don't remember ever quoting Beck...but that doesn't mean they aren't right on some issues.

Every issue eh Icky? And pragmatists too.

Do we need to go to energy again there Icky to show that pragmatism and superior stance?



you mean the obama is killing oil thread? the one where i showed you that it has doubled while he has been president?

you cannot be a pub and not quote rush or beck since they take up or make up everyone of your partys talking points.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

People who claim to be pragmatic, independent thinkers are really conservitives pretending to actual listen to actual facts.

I appreciate your concern on my reproductive health. However, in this way you are off base. No one else on the "con" side questions anyone's reproductive necessity, you started that crap.

Lets see, I would rather live where Conservatives do, states that are conservative give more to charity - FACT. The worst states for giving - LIBERAL states - FACT again.

For all your rant about Conservatives, they tend to be happier, are more giving and have a self starting attitude that leads to success.

I wish your family and children success, but I fear that what they will be going into when they are retirement age will be something extremely authoritarian and they may not be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor as the government will have it all to pay for all the promises given today...Only what the government deems them worthy of, in money and in health apportionment.

[badger]

Hey, just look at how the dems did on the deficit compaired to the pubs. Dems is lower. Carter lower than Reagan, clinton lower than either bush, obama has the same per year as bush's last year.

I love a good thread derailment, so let me try again.

Obama's presidential term has had an economy in the sh!tter since the beginning. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/cbo-feds-flirting-double-dip-recession/)

When he was elected back in 2008, I mused that like Gov. Brad Henry, he will accept being in such a bad economic place now because economies are cyclical and things are bound to turn around by the end of his term, much like Gov. Henry had a Rain Day Fund deposit, tax cut and spending increases to boast about by the end of his first term.

Alas, as that Washington Times article points out, employment levels aren't any better, deficit spending continues around the trillion mark, we are on the verge of huge spending cuts and tax increases for all, you name it, we're headed for another recession.

The economy impacts everyone, so at this point, I think whether you're left-leaning or right-leaning, you are going to cast aside your political opinion and say "Which guy is going to improve the economy so we can discuss political petty matters next election instead of whether I'll be able employed enough to afford food and shelter?"

This sh!tty economy puts things in perspective. People are starting to be in survival mode. To re-rail this thread, maybe that's why Akins still has a chance in this election according to polls. Voters might not care if he said "legitimate rape" if they're worried about losing their house and job to the sh!tty economy.

[rock on sooner]

I love a good thread derailment, so let me try again.

Obama's presidential term has had an economy in the sh!tter since the beginning. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/cbo-feds-flirting-double-dip-recession/)

When he was elected back in 2008, I mused that like Gov. Brad Henry, he will accept being in such a bad economic place now because economies are cyclical and things are bound to turn around by the end of his term, much like Gov. Henry had a Rain Day Fund deposit, tax cut and spending increases to boast about by the end of his first term.

Alas, as that Washington Times article points out, employment levels aren't any better, deficit spending continues around the trillion mark, we are on the verge of huge spending cuts and tax increases for all, you name it, we're headed for another recession.

The economy impacts everyone, so at this point, I think whether you're left-leaning or right-leaning, you are going to cast aside your political opinion and say "Which guy is going to improve the economy so we can discuss political petty matters next election instead of whether I'll be able employed enough to afford food and shelter?"

This sh!tty economy puts things in perspective. People are starting to be in survival mode. To re-rail this thread, maybe that's why Akins still has a chance in this election according to polls. Voters might not care if he said "legitimate rape" if they're worried about losing their house and job to the sh!tty economy.

I don't know if this is "re-railing" or not, but I think Akin spoke what
he believes. Look at his record in Washington. He joined with Ryan
in trying, over and over, to turn back women's progress in achieving
their own control over their own bodies. Honestly, I do NOT understand
why women line up in support of the Pubs, when the Pub party doesn't
appear to support women and women's choices!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Rock, that is hog wash. While I stay out of the abortion debate as much as possible, I do not believe it should be available as a contraceptive means like people on the other side seem to think it should be as a "women's right to choose". Perhaps morale behavior will change if there was a greater likelihood that if other means of protection were not used, then termination of a pregnancy just for convenience sake would not be available.

[okie52]

you mean the obama is killing oil thread? the one where i showed you that it has doubled while he has been president?

you cannot be a pub and not quote rush or beck since they take up or make up everyone of your partys talking points.

Oil production doubled under Obama? So now we are producing 20,000,000 barrels a day? Well that would make us energy independent. Please show it again.

How about shutting down the Atlantic, Pacific, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas to exploration? Was ordered twice by the courts to reopen the Gulf? That pragmatism there Icky?

The same pragmatic dems/libs that passed cap and trade in the house in 2009 at the height of the recession that punished NG while rewarding ethanol as a "favored fuel". The same author of the bill (Ed Markey) that later tried to ban exports of NG to foreign countries because NG gave America a distinct industrial advantage over other countries even though he had just previously tried to punish it with a 22% tax? That the pragmatism your talking about?

The same NG that reduced CO2 emissions by almost 20% in the last 4 years without cap and trade and was a much greater reduction than anything projected under cap and trade...that pragmatism?

How about Yucca there Icky? Remember that? The same national nuclear repository that had been approved and funded by the 4 previous administrations and 22 congresses. That had been approved by the National Academy of science for 10,000 years and endorsed by Obama's own energy secretary just 8 months before he took office. That pragmatism Icky?

Hell, Icky, you even said you don't agree with the libs stance on immigration...are you wrong on your stance? Obama fought (and lost) an AZ law that punished employers that hired illegals...the same law that was signed into being by his own homeland secretary Napolitano.

Oh I know you'll find it amazing that someone could vote for a candidate and not support all of his or his party's positions on every issue or even care who agrees with you. It is actually possible to do. Try it.

[badger]

Honestly, I do NOT understand
why women line up in support of the Pubs, when the Pub party doesn't
appear to support women and women's choices!

Let's see if I can add some perspective as a woman who mostly votes Republican (although I have voted for two Democrats!)

I was raised in a Republican household. Rather than emphasize the extreme tea party aspects of Republican idealism, the emphasis was on personal responsibility, to help others in need, but not to let yourself rely on others. Anyway, as is the case with team fandom, religion and other aspects of life, the way your parents raise you is often the way you turn out. So, I stayed Republican through my early voting years (although I guess I could change in the future).

The whole "support women and women's choices" things do bother me a tad. To politicize an issue as awful as rape is something that I don't take lightly.

But, at the same time, women that support Republicans in spite of some Republicans not taking strong stances to "support women and women's choices," IMHO, are looking beyond self interests.

The greater good - it might not be in my own interest to support it, but if it's best for the country, for a majority of people, etc., then I can support it.

Do I like paying taxes? No. But I do like the schools, roads and programs my taxes help fund.

Do I stopping at stop signs rather than drive right on through to my destination? No. But I do like that they make the roads I drive on safer.

Do I like our state being represented by a woman who cheated on her husband with a state trooper? No. But I do support the fact that a majority of voters voted her as governor so I can accept the will of the people.

So, that's what I think women voters' mindsets are - the greater good, not for my own good.

Of course, I think it is a motherly nature to be self-sacrificing for the good of others. Baby badger used to wake me up every three hours and bite me enthusiastically while being fed. I put up with less sleep, even though it probably wasn't exactly healthy for me. I put up with the biting, even though it was painful. I put up with it all, because I care about my little baby badger :)

[okie52]

I don't know if this is "re-railing" or not, but I think Akin spoke what
he believes. Look at his record in Washington. He joined with Ryan
in trying, over and over, to turn back women's progress in achieving
their own control over their own bodies. Honestly, I do NOT understand
why women line up in support of the Pubs, when the Pub party doesn't
appear to support women and women's choices!

You may find it surprising but there are many women that don't support abortion or pro choice. Many also don't support the government paying for abortions.

Not that hard to understand.

[badger]

You may find it surprising but there are many women that don't support abortion or pro choice.

Not that hard to understand.

That too. I was presented with the option of taking a test near the beginning of my second trimester that, despite a high false positive rate, may tell me if my child would have any birth defects so that I could have an abortion if I was going for a "perfect" baby.

I was utterly repulsed at the idea of aborting the living, breathing, kicking being inside of me.

[rock on sooner]

Rock, that is hog wash. While I stay out of the abortion debate as much as possible, I do not believe it should be available as a contraceptive means like people on the other side seem to think it should be as a "women's right to choose". Perhaps morale behavior will change if there was a greater likelihood that if other means of protection were not used, then termination of a pregnancy just for convenience sake would not be available.

THA, I agree that it should not be used as a contraceptive, but I believe that it is wrong
to try to legislate against having the safety net. There are so many instances where
somthing bad happened to cause a pregnancy. To create a law that says you medically
can't save your own life or the like is, I believe, a statement to women that we know
better than you, we are better than you and you can't make good decisions, so we'll
do it for you. My point in the earlier post is why do women line up in a party that tries
to do just that? I'm sorry, I just can't comprehend independent, free thinking individuals
buying into a policy that wants to set them back 35 or 40 years.

[okie52]

That too. I was presented with the option of taking a test near the beginning of my second trimester that, despite a high false positive rate, may tell me if my child would have any birth defects so that I could have an abortion if I was going for a "perfect" baby.

I was utterly repulsed at the idea of aborting the living, breathing, kicking being inside of me.

It would be a tough call. Some women may be able to put an abortion behind them but I imagine there are many that wish they could have that moment back.

[rock on sooner]

You may find it surprising but there are many women that don't support abortion or pro choice. Many also don't support the government paying for abortions.

Not that hard to understand.

Okie, I'm fully aware of what you say, and, Badger stated her point of view very well
after my post. Being fully cognizant of those things doesn't make it any easier for me
to grasp. Personal sacrifice for the greater good or the will of the people, well, I guess
that's okay for some, but seems to me that a lot of individualism is tamped down, or
tampered with to the detriment of the many.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

THA, I agree that it should not be used as a contraceptive, but I believe that it is wrong
to try to legislate against having the safety net. There are so many instances where
somthing bad happened to cause a pregnancy. To create a law that says you medically
can't save your own life or the like is, I believe, a statement to women that we know
better than you, we are better than you and you can't make good decisions, so we'll
do it for you. My point in the earlier post is why do women line up in a party that tries
to do just that? I'm sorry, I just can't comprehend independent, free thinking individuals
buying into a policy that wants to set them back 35 or 40 years.


Then we agree. I wish that the abortion issue was not the political football it has become. However, most republicans I know are that way due to fiscal conservatism rather than abortion. They would still be republican if the party came out for abortion rights. A medical aspect should not be legislated, IMO. Work hard as hell to educate against it, fine, legislate it - no way IMO.

[okie52]

Okie, I'm fully aware of what you say, and, Badger stated her point of view very well
after my post. Being fully cognizant of those things doesn't make it any easier for me
to grasp. Personal sacrifice for the greater good or the will of the people, well, I guess
that's okay for some, but seems to me that a lot of individualism is tamped down, or
tampered with to the detriment of the many.

My wife and I are raising 2 granddaughters that would have probably fallen to the wisdom of "abortion" under the circumstances. I am very grateful they are with us and I could never support abortion under most circumstances.

That said, I am pro choice...not because of any moralistic reason...I'm just willing to dump the decision to the mother and hope this issue eventually drops from the political radar. It won't, but I refuse to use a pro choice or pro life stance as a litmus test regarding a candidate.

[badger]

Okie, I'm fully aware of what you say, and, Badger stated her point of view very well
after my post. Being fully cognizant of those things doesn't make it any easier for me
to grasp. Personal sacrifice for the greater good or the will of the people, well, I guess
that's okay for some, but seems to me that a lot of individualism is tamped down, or
tampered with to the detriment of the many.

I will try to think of it in Democrat terms... trying to think like my Oregon relatives... OK, how bout this...

You plant a tree.

STAY WITH ME!

You plant a tree. It's a little stick in the ground that could die easily in an Oklahoma drought if you don't regularly water it. You don't get any shade out of it (except a tiny twig-of-a-shadow), you can't hang a hammock from it, you can't build a treehouse for your kids off of it and it takes up space. It's a tree, but it's a tiny, pathetic twig basically.

So why do you do it?

Because someday, that tree is no longer going to be a twig, but will clean the air, provide fruit/nuts/flowers for the enjoyment of others, provide shade for staying cool, provide firewood for staying warm, and will enrich the lives of others.

You do selfless things to feel good about yourself sometimes, if that makes sense.

[Skysooner]

My wife and I are raising 2 granddaughters that would have probably fallen to the wisdom of "abortion" under the circumstances. I am very grateful they are with us and I could never support abortion under most circumstances.

That said, I am pro choice...not because of any moralistic reason...I'm just willing to dump the decision to the mother and hope this issue eventually drops from the political radar. It won't, but I refuse to use a pro choice or pro life stance as a litmus test regarding a candidate.

Nice stance. Sums up my feelings too.

[LiveLaughLove]

You may find it surprising but there are many women that don't support abortion or pro choice. Many also don't support the government paying for abortions.

Not that hard to understand.

Many also don't see the party of bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy to be exactly pro woman.

[okie52]

Many also don't see the party of bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy to be exactly pro woman.

Well I don't know why not...they always loved women.

[LiveLaughLove]

Well I don't know why not...they always loved women.

Im sure they loved for women to get abortions any time anywhere. Party time!

[okie52]

Im sure they loved for women to get abortions any time anywhere. Party time!

Evidently Bill was into "safe sex"...Ted couldn't say that.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

My wife and I are raising 2 granddaughters that would have probably fallen to the wisdom of "abortion" under the circumstances. I am very grateful they are with us and I could never support abortion under most circumstances.

That said, I am pro choice...not because of any moralistic reason...I'm just willing to dump the decision to the mother and hope this issue eventually drops from the political radar. It won't, but I refuse to use a pro choice or pro life stance as a litmus test regarding a candidate.Here's how it works. If you are a Lib, you are prolly pro abortion. If not, you dare not say anything to the contrary, and you WON'T be quuestioned about it by the MSM. If you are conservative and rational about the overall goal of gaining control of the govt., to try to save it, you will vote for the repub running for the office in the general election, as you can be certain the democrat will vote on most, if not all issues the wrong way, and we WILL be transformed.

[LiveLaughLove]

Also as i predicted, not that was hard, a guy that is running to represent 1/50th of the states, in 1/100th of the jobs in DC, has been front page, lead story for several days now.

As opposed to a guy that represents 1/1th of the vice presidents in DC, stoking racial division barely got a mention.

A stupid statement vs a calculated effort to stoke hatred all for the sake of votes. Well of course Akins was worse, right?

[okie52]

Nice stance. Sums up my feelings too.

Thanks.

[LiveLaughLove]

Evidently Bill was into "safe sex"...Ted couldn't say that.

Eh, I think Clinton was like fleas on a dog. We only know ten percent of what he was up to.

[okie52]

Also as i predicted, not that was hard, a guy that is running to represent 1/50th of the states, in 1/100th of the jobs in DC, has been front page, lead story for several days now.

As opposed to a guy that represents 1/1th of the vice presidents in DC, stoking racial division barely got a mention.

A stupid statement vs a calculated effort to stoke hatred all for the sake of votes. Well of course Akins was worse, right?

Oh, if similar circumstances existed the pubs would try to get front page too (like you didn't build it or Biden's daily gaffes). Now maybe you're saying the MSM is playing games and you might be right to some degree given their slant...but ultimately what will keep it on the front page is if the public really gives a **** otherwise the ratings wars will always win out in the end.

[Midtowner]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/8/21/1345584372089/-460.jpeg

Yeah.. you made another mistake there Akin.

The party of dumb?

[rock on sooner]

Well, Okie, THA, Badg, Sky, LLL (I think), we all seem to agree
that pro choice is a better stance than to legislate against it. It
seems we all have different reasons to come to the same conclusion.
For that I appreciate the back and forth. Is there a way to carry that
to wider understanding?

I ask that 'cause I just saw on CNN that Akin says the liberal media
is trying to get him to drop out! Did y'all know that Mitt, Ryan, Rush,
McConnell, Boehner, Guiliani, Priebus, among other Pubs, are libs now?
Least that's what Akin wants everyone to believe!

Back to serious for just a moment, abortion will continue to be a political
football, so long as a group of people keep up with the legislative efforts
of Ryan and Akin. I have to point the finger at the Pubs here. You guys
need to take your well thought out stances to your Republican friends
and get them to be more sensible.

[badger]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/8/21/1345584372089/-460.jpeg

Yeah.. you made another mistake there Akin.

The party of dumb?

Oh man... uggggghhhh. Wrong words wrong way. Two wrongs make an... ill-conceived! Gag. Well, at least he apologized. Apology accepted, but I'm still not going to vote for you.

Of course, I don't live in Missouri :P


Eh, I think Clinton was like fleas on a dog. We only know ten percent of what he was up to.

Hillary either really loves Bill or really loves her political career thanks to be married to Bill or there's no way any self respecting woman would put up with that crap.

Considering that she evolved from Hillary Rodham to Hillary Rodham Clinton to just Hillary Clinton, I'd have to guess it's the political career love. Gag again. No wonder even my Oregon relatives didn't vote for her.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/8/21/1345584372089/-460.jpeg

Yeah.. you made another mistake there Akin.

The party of dumb?

This is such a bad idea on so many levels... Seems as if this is the finger at the republican establishment. I think this will fail for Akin really bad.

[Midtowner]

Oh man... uggggghhhh. Wrong words wrong way. Two wrongs make an... ill-conceived! Gag. Well, at least he apologized. Apology accepted, but I'm still not going to vote for you.

Such amateur hour over there. You'd think that a campaign would be able to hire copywriters who knew basic grammar.

[LiveLaughLove]

Well, Okie, THA, Badg, Sky, LLL (I think), we all seem to agree
that pro choice is a better stance than to legislate against it. It
seems we all have different reasons to come to the same conclusion.
For that I appreciate the back and forth. Is there a way to carry that
to wider understanding?

I ask that 'cause I just saw on CNN that Akin says the liberal media
is trying to get him to drop out! Did y'all know that Mitt, Ryan, Rush,
McConnell, Boehner, Guiliani, Priebus, among other Pubs, are libs now?
Least that's what Akin wants everyone to believe!

Back to serious for just a moment, abortion will continue to be a political
football, so long as a group of people keep up with the legislative efforts
of Ryan and Akin. I have to point the finger at the Pubs here. You guys
need to take your well thought out stances to your Republican friends
and get them to be more sensible.

Don't include me in the pro abortion crowd. Not a chance.

Doesn't mean I think Akin was right, he was an idiot. His pro life stance isn't.

I am fully for equal rights for the very much alive but unborn child.

A for legislation, that was forced on us by an activist court. I don't like it, but its what a are forced to do to protect the child right to life.

Just read that the democrats are going to make their convention all abortion all the time. I hope they do. Nothing will turn people off faster than planned parenthood and naral banshees screaming about reproductive rights.

[badger]

This is such a bad idea on so many levels... Seems as if this is the finger at the republican establishment. I think this will fail for Akin really bad.

Sideshow Bob: No children have ever meddled with the Republican Party and lived to tell about it.

[rock on sooner]

My apologies, LLL, I don't view pro choice and pro abortion as the same,
even though, the end result is. I just believe that the women should
have the choice, not a bunch of politicians.

Again, my apologies.

[LiveLaughLove]

My apologies, LLL, I don't view pro choice and pro abortion as the same,
even though, the end result is. I just believe that the women should
have the choice, not a bunch of politicians.

Again, my apologies.

No problem, saying pro choice sanitizes the act of slaughter somewhat. Makes it more palatable I suppose. I would just like someone to give the child the choice. I don't know of anyone that wouldn't choose to live over being shredded.

Is a shame we can't talk to them. I have forgotten who, but someone said if a womans womb were transparent, abortion would be gone immediately. I agree.

[KantoSooner]

It seems pretty clear that the vast majority of the population wants a reasonable middle ground solution and is pretty happy with the position that the court carved out in Roe. (last Pew poll I saw indicated something like 60-65% of the country in support) Considering that elections are being decided these days by about 10% of the independents in the veeeeeerrrrry middle of the spectrum, you'd think that Republicans would build their platforms with that sector in mind.

But, I've worked with people who far preferred being 'right' than selling a customer what the customer wanted to buy. So, it's possible that this election could see the Republicans splintering into a centrist/conservative party and a fringe/rightwing party. That might be healthy as the former would take about 10-15% of the current Repub voters and the latter would inherit 20-25% of the electorate....but the centrists would then form the natural home for 30% or so of presently up for grabs voters and probably pull 5-10% of the Dems leaving a landscape dominated by the centrists at somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% and two '-wing' parties of 20-25% each. At that point, you could expect further splintering of the two wings to represent, for instance, 'greens' on the one hand, 'catholics' and probably a 'protestant' religious extremist element and perhaps a few other single issue voting blocs.
It would end up looking more like a western European breakdown.
And wouldn't it be ironic if bull-headed refusal to compromise were to generate such a result?

[Midtowner]

Roe isn't the last major case defining abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

As far as the disintegration of the Republican Party, they might want to ask the Whigs how they and their staunch devotion to party dogma went.

[rock on sooner]

It seems pretty clear that the vast majority of the population wants a reasonable middle ground solution and is pretty happy with the position that the court carved out in Roe. (last Pew poll I saw indicated something like 60-65% of the country in support) Considering that elections are being decided these days by about 10% of the independents in the veeeeeerrrrry middle of the spectrum, you'd think that Republicans would build their platforms with that sector in mind.

But, I've worked with people who far preferred being 'right' than selling a customer what the customer wanted to buy. So, it's possible that this election could see the Republicans splintering into a centrist/conservative party and a fringe/rightwing party. That might be healthy as the former would take about 10-15% of the current Repub voters and the latter would inherit 20-25% of the electorate....but the centrists would then form the natural home for 30% or so of presently up for grabs voters and probably pull 5-10% of the Dems leaving a landscape dominated by the centrists at somewhere in the neighborhood of 50% and two '-wing' parties of 20-25% each. At that point, you could expect further splintering of the two wings to represent, for instance, 'greens' on the one hand, 'catholics' and probably a 'protestant' religious extremist element and perhaps a few other single issue voting blocs.
It would end up looking more like a western European breakdown.
And wouldn't it be ironic if bull-headed refusal to compromise were to generate such a result?

That'd sure put the constitutionalists in a tizzy. It looks like a
number of the old guard is gonna get tossed by the Tea Partiers.
AND, I think some of the 2010 Tea Parties are gonna get tossed
'cause folks are tired of gridlock....

[rock on sooner]

Roe isn't the last major case defining abortion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

As far as the disintegration of the Republican Party, they might want to ask the Whigs how they and their staunch devotion to party dogma went.

Prolly why Mitt wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood...wow,
from a staunch pro choice all the way to the other side of the
issue!

[KantoSooner]

I'm hearing an increasing refrain from people who can not stomach the crypto-collectivist economic policies of the Democrats...and likewise the near-beer religio-facism of the Republicans.
And one interpretation of the polls, at least, would suggest that such people are close to, if not an outright majority of the population. If that's true, no matter how well organized the fringe elements are, they antagonize the centrist beast at their peril.
The moment is ripe for a Jerry Ford Republican...but I fear such people were purged over the past 25 years and now will have to be found outside the two party structure.

[okie52]

Prolly why Mitt wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood...wow,
from a staunch pro choice all the way to the other side of the
issue!

Just evolving...well, you know how that goes.

[rock on sooner]

Just evolving...well, you know how that goes.

Well, at least I didn't say "flip flop"...diplomatic, doncha know?:congratulatory:

[okie52]

Well, at least I didn't say "flip flop"...diplomatic, doncha know?:congratulatory:

I appreciate your diplomacy.:applouse:

[badger]

Prolly why Mitt wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood...wow,
from a staunch pro choice all the way to the other side of the
issue!

Get rid of it, or just not government fund it?

I really think with as many people as they've helped, they'll get funding one way or another, either via the government or via private donors. Remember the big stink of a situation Komen for the Cure was in when they tried to stop their support of Planned Parenthood? Whoops...

[LiveLaughLove]

Want an extreme abortion position? How about letting the very much alive baby outside the womb, fully delivered being put in a cloak room until it does from hypothermia and malnutrition.

That's the extreme abortion position.

A repugnant a it is to me, I think the mom should have the final say in cases of rape and incest. I would pay they would spare the child, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they didn't.

As contraception, the choice was made when the Ferguson to have sex was made. That will always be a no go for me. That's not extreme.

[ictsooner7]

Want an extreme abortion position? How about letting the very much alive baby outside the womb, fully delivered being put in a cloak room until it does from hypothermia and malnutrition.

That's the extreme abortion position.

A repugnant a it is to me, I think the mom should have the final say in cases of rape and incest. I would pay they would spare the child, but I wouldn't hold it against them if they didn't.

As contraception, the choice was made when the Ferguson to have sex was made. That will always be a no go for me. That's not extreme.

I'm going to need a link for the whole baby outside of the womb thing.

[rock on sooner]

I appreciate your diplomacy.:applouse:

Okie, huge problem here. I think we both want something
to figure out how to fix the mess.. I firmly believe that a
sensible approach to abortion, birth control of any sort or,
please help me, I have a big problem, can be met with
understanding and some compassion that some cut and
dried gov't worker can't comprehend. It takes training,
understanding and effort on both sides to fix. Jus sayin...

And, yup, aint dipolmacy nice?:applouse:

[rock on sooner]

Get rid of it, or just not government fund it?

I really think with as many people as they've helped, they'll get funding one way or another, either via the government or via private donors. Remember the big stink of a situation Komen for the Cure was in when they tried to stop their support of Planned Parenthood? Whoops...

Badg, there's enuf Pubs to argue about funding or not funding..
Fact is, if they do, they're hurtin' and if they don't then they're hurtin'.
so it is prolly a non issue, cause the Dems will hold their feet to the
fire, whichever way they go. Just needs go be some sense, but, aint
no way. True sadness. JMO...

[okie52]

Okie, huge problem here. I think we both want something
to figure out how to fix the mess.. I firmly believe that a
sensible approach to abortion, birth control of any sort or,
please help me, I have a big problem, can be met with
understanding and some compassion that some cut and
dried gov't worker can't comprehend. It takes training,
understanding and effort on both sides to fix. Jus sayin...

And, yup, aint dipolmacy nice?:applouse:

I come from a different angle than most Rock On, I want less people instead of more. I want to see the world with a billion people instead of 8 billion.

So I heartily support free birth control and thorough sex educations. Hopefully abortions would subside and smarter choices would be made. Certainly try to greatly reduce teen pregnancies.

[marfacowboy]

I come from a different angle than most Rock On, I want less people instead of more. I want to see the world with a billion people instead of 8 billion.

So I heartily support free birth control and thorough sex educations. Hopefully abortions would subside and smarter choices would be made. Certainly try to greatly reduce teen pregnancies.

I agree 100%.

[rock on sooner]

I come from a different angle than most Rock On, I want less people instead of more. I want to see the world with a billion people instead of 8 billion.

So I heartily support free birth control and thorough sex educations. Hopefully abortions would subside and smarter choices would be made. Certainly try to greatly reduce teen pregnancies.

Who in the world is going to present birth control and sex education?
Can you imagine the angst over what and how to teach? Hell, we can't
agree on which chips to have with guacamole!

[okie52]

Heh, well we have sex Ed so maybe we just need more of it but definitely more BC. Hell id support free BC inoculations at every school for teenage girls.

[rock on sooner]

Heh, well we have sex Ed so maybe we just need more of it but definitely more BC. Hell id support free BC inoculations at every school for teenage girls.

Ooooh, talk about ACLU bein all over yer *** and nobody
to help you...

[okie52]

Ooooh, talk about ACLU bein all over yer *** and nobody
to help you...

Yep...I didn't say I'd win any office. The BC shots could be with parental consent and condoms could be handed out.

[LiveLaughLove]

I'm going to need a link for the whole baby outside of the womb thing.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/290764/clarifying-obamas-vote-born-alive-peter-kirsanow

Even naral didn't oppose the bill. Obama was to the left of them. That's extreme, very extreme.


*BAIPA was introduced after evidence was presented that babies born alive after unsuccessful abortions were simply discarded in utility closets without food, care, or medical treatment until they died.

state senator Obama fought against the Illinois version of BAIPA that was identical in all material respects to the federal version. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama claimed that he voted against the Illinois BAIPA because it failed to contain a “neutrality clause” making it clear that the bill did not affect the right to an*abortion. This is false. Documents obtained by National Right to Life show that the Illinois BAIPA did, in fact, contain a neutrality clause identical to the federal version.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm hearing an increasing refrain from people who can not stomach the crypto-collectivist economic policies of the Democrats...and likewise the near-beer religio-facism of the Republicans.
And one interpretation of the polls, at least, would suggest that such people are close to, if not an outright majority of the population. If that's true, no matter how well organized the fringe elements are, they antagonize the centrist beast at their peril.
The moment is ripe for a Jerry Ford Republican...but I fear such people were purged over the past 25 years and now will have to be found outside the two party structure.This election is about getting rid of Obama and his band. The only way to do that is to vote for the republicans. It's just math, and is unforgiving. Obama's strategy, as with most d's, is divide and conquer, because it works. The key is to not let Him do that.

[diverdog]

This election is about getting rid of Obama and his band. The only way to do that is to vote for the republicans. It's just math, and is unforgiving. Obama's strategy, as with most d's, is divide and conquer, because it works. The key is to not let Him do that.

So you are telling me the Republican Party is the party of unity? Brahahahahahaha That is good one Clone.

[Skysooner]

This election is about getting rid of Obama and his band. The only way to do that is to vote for the republicans. It's just math, and is unforgiving. Obama's strategy, as with most d's, is divide and conquer, because it works. The key is to not let Him do that.

No, this election is about getting a government that will actually do something about the debt, still promote growth (as this is a debt reducer action), take care of the people that need to be taken care of (definitely not as many as they do now) and preserve civil liberties. Energy policy is a huge part of this as cheaper energy that we can have in this country is a HUGE advantage in bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country. This is not a wholesale sweeping of the government. The Pubs have not proven to be any more adept at governing than the Democrats at this point. Your tea party candidates caused a huge retracement in the stock market last year which didn't have to happen. The Democrats haven't produced realistic budgets. Both parties are being obstructionist with each other. Honestly the best that could come out of this is a viable third party in the center that will address some of the hard questions.

[marfacowboy]

This election is about getting rid of Obama and his band. The only way to do that is to vote for the republicans. It's just math, and is unforgiving. Obama's strategy, as with most d's, is divide and conquer, because it works. The key is to not let Him do that.

I think this pretty much sums up the Republican position. Get rid of Obama. They're apparently willing to do anything to make that happen.
I saw a story last night about a county sheriff in Texas that said if Obama wins we could be looking at civil unrest, disobedience and "civil war." He claimed Obama was going to turn over the nation to the UN, and he wasn't going to have UN troops in Lubbock County.
What a crock of ****. Talk about divide and conquer....
The fact of the matter is they haven't wanted him in the White House because he's black. They can't stand him and constantly talk about government spending as the big issue. Yet, their darling, Reagan, was actually the bigger spender (think Weaponized Keynesianism (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html)).

[olevetonahill]

Oh Boy the race card again
How about we dont want him the White House cause hes a failed social experiment and hasnt keep many IF any of his campaign promises of 08?

Hope and Change my azz, Im just hoping we have some change LEFT after he's gone

[KantoSooner]

Rush, I have been a registered and voting Republican since the 1980 election. (I worked for Ford before that as a canvasser, but wasn't old enough to vote). I have been a conservative since reading Goldwater's little book when I was 15. But here is where I have arrived:
Obama and the Democrats have a bedrock dedication to the idea that the government is THE central entity in our society and that, when push comes to shove, no other player is really very important, least of all, the individual citizen. I find this philosophy to be disgusting and analytically full of ****. I won't vote for Obama.
Here's my dilemma, however, during my lifetime, the Republican party has morphed from being, ostensibly (the truth was always a bit more nuanced, witness Nixon's running up of the debt), the party of small and limited government to being, today, the party of social/religious orthodoxy. I won't vote for a theocracy, even if it's fed to me with plenty of sugar.
As I see it, I can choose the creeping centralization agenda of the Democrats, or I can opt for the couple from 'American Gothic' standing in the corner of my bedroom with guns ordering me to get up, drink my buttermilk, get dressed and over to prayer meeting. NOW! (That's todays Republican party in a nutshell.)
I refuse to do either.
I also feel obligated to vote and disagree with staying home and not voting. So, what am I left with? It's like a choice between socialists and nazis. I intend to write in someone and am researching Libertarian candidates.
Maybe Barry Switzer would consent to run. As weird as that would be, I am utterly serious in my opinion that he'd be better than either of the duds who are heading up our two major parties today. Hell, almost anyone would be better.

[Midtowner]

Your imagery is disturbing.

[KantoSooner]

I try.

[Skysooner]

When I sober the fuc* up Ima go look thru evey ****in post YOU ever made here and see If YOU ever misspoke.
Ok? Fair nuff? all that shat?

Still waiting...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Rush, I have been a registered and voting Republican since the 1980 election. (I worked for Ford before that as a canvasser, but wasn't old enough to vote). I have been a conservative since reading Goldwater's little book when I was 15. But here is where I have arrived:
Obama and the Democrats have a bedrock dedication to the idea that the government is THE central entity in our society and that, when push comes to shove, no other player is really very important, least of all, the individual citizen. I find this philosophy to be disgusting and analytically full of ****. I won't vote for Obama.
Here's my dilemma, however, during my lifetime, the Republican party has morphed from being, ostensibly (the truth was always a bit more nuanced, witness Nixon's running up of the debt), the party of small and limited government to being, today, the party of social/religious orthodoxy. I won't vote for a theocracy, even if it's fed to me with plenty of sugar.
As I see it, I can choose the creeping centralization agenda of the Democrats, or I can opt for the couple from 'American Gothic' standing in the corner of my bedroom with guns ordering me to get up, drink my buttermilk, get dressed and over to prayer meeting. NOW! (That's todays Republican party in a nutshell.)
I refuse to do either.
I also feel obligated to vote and disagree with staying home and not voting. So, what am I left with? It's like a choice between socialists and nazis. I intend to write in someone and am researching Libertarian candidates.
Maybe Barry Switzer would consent to run. As weird as that would be, I am utterly serious in my opinion that he'd be better than either of the duds who are heading up our two major parties today. Hell, almost anyone would be better.Welcome to the "WTF Happened???" Club when Obama is re-elected. You'll see just how fast that socialism creeps, and you won't be happy.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No, this election is about getting a government that will actually do something about the debt, still promote growth (as this is a debt reducer action), take care of the people that need to be taken care of (definitely not as many as they do now) and preserve civil liberties. Energy policy is a huge part of this as cheaper energy that we can have in this country is a HUGE advantage in bringing manufacturing jobs back to this country. This is not a wholesale sweeping of the government. The Pubs have not proven to be any more adept at governing than the Democrats at this point. Your tea party candidates caused a huge retracement in the stock market last year which didn't have to happen. The Democrats haven't produced realistic budgets. Both parties are being obstructionist with each other. Honestly the best that could come out of this is a viable third party in the center that will address some of the hard questions.We all know the only hope we have is with Romney. If enough people vote 3rd party or don't vote, Obama gets re-elected. I REALLY DO wish math wasn't so unforgiving, but divide and conquer works for the democrats, and that's why we get them in. I don't know if you've noticed, but Obama is a LOT more outlaw and unconstitutional than anyone who's been up there in your lifetime, and 4 more yrs of that will be a disaster of record proportions for this country.

[hawaii 5-0]

I think this pretty much sums up the Republican position. Get rid of Obama. They're apparently willing to do anything to make that happen.
I saw a story last night about a county sheriff in Texas that said if Obama wins we could be looking at civil unrest, disobedience and "civil war." He claimed Obama was going to turn over the nation to the UN, and he wasn't going to have UN troops in Lubbock County.
What a crock of ****. Talk about divide and conquer....
The fact of the matter is they haven't wanted him in the White House because he's black. They can't stand him and constantly talk about government spending as the big issue. Yet, their darling, Reagan, was actually the bigger spender (think Weaponized Keynesianism (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/08/opinion/krugman-reagan-was-a-keynesian.html)).


It wasn't a county sheriff. It was a judge.

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

Anyone notice how much that wacko Missouri Republican who honestly spouts the Republican Party's mantra looks like Billy Tubbs?


5-0

[marfacowboy]

It wasn't a county sheriff. It was a judge.

5-0

****. That's ten times worse.

[marfacowboy]

Obama and the Democrats have a bedrock dedication to the idea that the government is THE central entity in our society and that, when push comes to shove, no other player is really very important, least of all, the individual citizen. I find this philosophy to be disgusting and analytically full of ****. I won't vote for Obama.

I don't believe this is true. In fact, I'd say it's an indefensible position, a gross generalization and misrepresentation. I know you're smart, so don't let all of this emotion that seems to permeate the environment send you off into hyperbole land.

The evidence suggests the Democrats certainly believe in a stronger central government and in government playing a larger role in economics and social services. But to say they want government to be the "central entity" in our lives is absurd. What mainstream Democrats want is a ground floor for society, a floor people shouldn't sink below, and we have to have that in order to maintain order in society. It's just the way it is. People will always need help, and the private sector or churches are insufficient.

It's even good for business, because when too many people sink below that level (Memphis is an example), the whole economic community suffers. That city is a mess, and because it's a mess (crime, high infant mortality, poor education, high homelessness), the city can't attract business and industry. People are leaving like there's a plague, which affects the tax base and everything else. This is where government, often in conjunction with the private sector, has to do something.

As I've consistently stated, for our society to function properly, we must have balance between public and private. Sometimes, the Democrats push too hard on government involvement. I'll buy that. But as it stands today, it's the right that is attempting to completely demonize the government and all it stands for (other than defense...and that's because the economy is propped up by defense spending in a permanent war economy).


Here's my dilemma, however, during my lifetime, the Republican party has morphed from being, ostensibly (the truth was always a bit more nuanced, witness Nixon's running up of the debt), the party of small and limited government to being, today, the party of social/religious orthodoxy. I won't vote for a theocracy, even if it's fed to me with plenty of sugar.

I agree with this, except it's a lot more than just the party of religious orthodoxy. Their real mantra, the one that's repeated behind closed doors (and sometimes not), is privatization, even including the privatization of public lands and resources.


I also feel obligated to vote and disagree with staying home and not voting. So, what am I left with? It's like a choice between socialists and nazis. I intend to write in someone and am researching Libertarian candidates.

Well, I always voted for Nader as my "protest" vote. Voting for Obama in my state won't mean ****, because its electoral votes are going to a Republican.

[ictsooner7]

I don't believe this is true. In fact, I'd say it's an indefensible position, a gross generalization and misrepresentation. I know you're smart, so don't let all of this emotion that seems to permeate the environment send you off into hyperbole land.

The evidence suggests the Democrats certainly believe in a stronger central government and in government playing a larger role in economics and social services. But to say they want government to be the "central entity" in our lives is absurd. What mainstream Democrats want is a ground floor for society, a floor people shouldn't sink below, and we have to have that in order to maintain order in society. It's just the way it is. People will always need help, and the private sector or churches are insufficient.

It's even good for business, because when too many people sink below that level (Memphis is an example), the whole economic community suffers. That city is a mess, and because it's a mess (crime, high infant mortality, poor education, high homelessness), the city can't attract business and industry. People are leaving like there's a plague, which affects the tax base and everything else. This is where government, often in conjunction with the private sector, has to do something.

As I've consistently stated, for our society to function properly, we must have balance between public and private. Sometimes, the Democrats push too hard on government involvement. I'll buy that. But as it stands today, it's the right that is attempting to completely demonize the government and all it stands for (other than defense...and that's because the economy is propped up by defense spending in a permanent war economy).

I agree with this, except it's a lot more than just the party of religious orthodoxy. Their real mantra, the one that's repeated behind closed doors (and sometimes not), is privatization, even including the privatization of public lands and resources.

Well, I always voted for Nader as my "protest" vote. Voting for Obama in my state won't mean ****, because its electoral votes are going to a Republican.

You are right about being a gross generalization and misrepresentation. Keep in mind that for the right to get their base fired up and head to the polls, they have to be angry. Their leaders always dream something up to get angry about, non-existent welfare Cadillac queens, draft dodging, abortion, family values being eroded, mistreating the military, being soft on defense, being a socialist, being a foreigner, wanting to take your guns and now the deficit. The republican party plays lip service to being the party of small and limited government, looking at facts and data anyone would find out that the government grows more during republican presidents than it does during democratic presidents, as does the debt. KantoSooner is correct when he states the republican party of one of social/religious orthodoxy that cannot be broken. However, they invited them into their house now they cannot control them. Their opposition to President Obama is laughable, bush took the deficit from $238 billion SURPLUS to a $1.2 TRILLION DEFICIT while losing private industry jobs and growing government jobs. The President has generated more PRIVATE industry jobs in 3.5 years than bush, who BTW had private industry experience as did his vice president the dark lord, did in eight years. Government jobs have dropped by 500k, private industry jobs have grown, taxes have been cut and the deficit has been flat under President Obama, so the question is why do they hate him so?

The bottom line is that republicans do not believe in real freedom, they simply want to be the ones who choose which “freedoms” you have. The ability to own military grade weapons and carry them to church or a movie theater or to a political rally is not true freedom, especially when you want to pick and choose who gets to vote, what medical procedures you get to have, what medications are available to you, if you can join a union, if a place of worship can be built and where it is located or if you can marry the one you love.

[KantoSooner]

Welcome to the "WTF Happened???" Club when Obama is re-elected. You'll see just how fast that socialism creeps, and you won't be happy.

I'd have been happy to agree with you regarding the desireability of Obama being a one termer. The problem for me, and what's changed in my views recently is that I've come to the conclusion that, as much as Obama believes things I disagree with and as much as he is trying to do things I don't want to see happen, I feel the same way, with the same strength of conviction, about Romney and Ryan.

I think either option the major parties are offering me are bad and about as bad, each to the other.

We've finally come to the point where I simply can't stomach either choice. They're both hideous.

[KantoSooner]

Marfa,
I used to think that the Democrats shared a fundamental commitment to private enterprise as the bedrock of the economy. I have lost that belief. Listening not just to Obama (his statement that "You didn't build that" was not a) a slip of the tongue, nor, b) a simple attack on the arrogance of successful business people. It was, instead, I believe, a moment of extraordinary honesty and clarity expressing his belief that the individual is capable of nothing without the collective and that it is to the collective that all accomplishment is to be attributed. And a more obnoxious credo I can not imagine.) but also to Wasserman-Shultz and other leading lights in the party. It has become apparent to me that they are dedicated to a view of our country as a sort of group to which one must beg, on bended knee, for full membership. A group that controls all and may, legitimately award beneifts or withhold them to produce 'good' behaviour.

I believe that the Democrats design will create a permanent underclass, beholden to the government who will never emerge into being fully adult and, in a broader sense, to realize their potential as human beings as they will never be allowed to try and stand on their own feet. And I think that horrible. I would like to see much more in the way of support for minor children. Up to and including free college education, maybe. And I'd like to see much less support for adults who don't try.

Now, if you buy any of my conclusions, you can understand the depth of my antipathy towards the Democrats.

And that, combined with the statement that I can not support the Republicans, either; and view their danger to our society as equal to that posed by the Democrats, should tell you something about how despicable I find the turns taken by the Republican party in the last 30 years or so.

I suppose what I'm saying is that, while there have always been whack jobs in both parties, I am now convinced that the inmates are running the asylum in both parties. The fringe wings have taken over the centers and there is very little, if any, shared consensus. And I find that worrisome and refuse to lend my puny vote to support either one of these assemblies of morons.

[Turd_Ferguson]

****. That's ten times worse.You wouldn't make a mole on Captain Augustus McCrae's ***...

[Midtowner]

Context is key.

IhpJInvUIUY

[okie52]

I'd have been happy to agree with you regarding the desireability of Obama being a one termer. The problem for me, and what's changed in my views recently is that I've come to the conclusion that, as much as Obama believes things I disagree with and as much as he is trying to do things I don't want to see happen, I feel the same way, with the same strength of conviction, about Romney and Ryan.

I think either option the major parties are offering me are bad and about as bad, each to the other.

We've finally come to the point where I simply can't stomach either choice. They're both hideous.

So what are Romney/Ryan proposing to do that you disagree with?

[marfacowboy]

You wouldn't make a mole on Captain Augustus McCrae's ***...

lulz....I hope not. He was a funny character, and had a lot of admirable traits. But I'd rather be me and not a whore hopping, lazy, drunkard. (I think you missed McMurtry's point in the novel, btw.)

[marfacowboy]

Kanto, I really don't have a problem with his statement (you didn't build that), and do agree with Midtowner about context. Private enterprise did not build the country alone. It doesn't exist or have success all by itself today, either. Our country's success has always been about the partnership between government and free enterprise. Government makes it possible for free enterprise to operate. Building infrastructure, securing our nation, negotiating trade, etc. It saves industries and protects investors from fraud. It's a cooperative relationship.
What is government doing to create a "permanent underclass?" You mention free college education. Seems to work pretty well in Europe, especially in Germany. Why should our educational system become a free market bonanza where the most vulnerable, young people with limited educations and resources, are exploited?
Our economic history is pretty clear on the role of government during periods of severe economic downturn. Reagan knew this, so what did he do? He spent. He spent big! He spent it on defense, but government spending, getting cash into the economy, be it on defense or infrastructure rebuilding (my preference) is a proven economic strategy. Maybe there are a handful of Democrats that want to create this welfare train you're seeing, but that's not the purpose of the party leadership. I just don't see it.

[KantoSooner]

So what are Romney/Ryan proposing to do that you disagree with?

I disagree with virtually all their social agenda and they appear dedicated to not simply advocate for their social values but to legislate for them, thus making disagreement with their positions illegal. I think they are authoritarian in a very dangerous way.

[okie52]

I disagree with virtually all their social agenda and they appear dedicated to not simply advocate for their social values but to legislate for them, thus making disagreement with their positions illegal. I think they are authoritarian in a very dangerous way.

Are they advocating legislating away freedom of speech? I hadn't heard that.

So, for you, social issues outweighs financial ones?

[ictsooner7]

Marfa,
I used to think that the Democrats shared a fundamental commitment to private enterprise as the bedrock of the economy. I have lost that belief. Listening not just to Obama (his statement that "You didn't build that" was not a) a slip of the tongue, nor, b) a simple attack on the arrogance of successful business people. It was, instead, I believe, a moment of extraordinary honesty and clarity expressing his belief that the individual is capable of nothing without the collective and that it is to the collective that all accomplishment is to be attributed. And a more obnoxious credo I can not imagine.) but also to Wasserman-Shultz and other leading lights in the party. It has become apparent to me that they are dedicated to a view of our country as a sort of group to which one must beg, on bended knee, for full membership. A group that controls all and may, legitimately award beneifts or withhold them to produce 'good' behaviour.

I believe that the Democrats design will create a permanent underclass, beholden to the government who will never emerge into being fully adult and, in a broader sense, to realize their potential as human beings as they will never be allowed to try and stand on their own feet. And I think that horrible. I would like to see much more in the way of support for minor children. Up to and including free college education, maybe. And I'd like to see much less support for adults who don't try.

Now, if you buy any of my conclusions, you can understand the depth of my antipathy towards the Democrats.

And that, combined with the statement that I can not support the Republicans, either; and view their danger to our society as equal to that posed by the Democrats, should tell you something about how despicable I find the turns taken by the Republican party in the last 30 years or so.

I suppose what I'm saying is that, while there have always been whack jobs in both parties, I am now convinced that the inmates are running the asylum in both parties. The fringe wings have taken over the centers and there is very little, if any, shared consensus. And I find that worrisome and refuse to lend my puny vote to support either one of these assemblies of morons.

If you really think President Obama was saying the small businesses didn’t build their own business, you are too ill-informed to vote. Watch the clip – you can tell he was talking about the infrastructure, not the business. I completely agree with what he said before, some people who got have gotten wealthy seem to think they are wealthy because they are smarter, work harder or just better than anyone else. Nobody succeeds on their own. There was a mentor, or boss, or circumstances that let them shine. Now they did something to be in the right place at the right time, no doubt about that, but to pretend that if you are rich or successful you are better than those who are not is just wrong.

Do you believe that those Olympiads who “didn’t there by themselves” got there all by themselves or they had help?




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zSWm2qZ8Oc

Your comment about Democrats create a permanent underclass, beholden to the government, tells me you listen to too many rightwing talking points. Do you think The President eliminate work rules for welfare?

[okie52]

Context is key.

IhpJInvUIUY

Exactly.


“But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. (Applause.) And, by the way, we’ve tried that before — a guy named Bill Clinton did it. We created 23 million new jobs, turned a deficit into a surplus, and rich people did just fine. We created a lot of millionaires.

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”


As an aside, Clinton tax rates? Well Obama sure isn't proposing to go back to those rates...you know, the nirvana that was created by those taxes on everyone. He forgot to mention that.

So your business didn't happen because you were smart, hard working, creative, a risk taker, etc...it happened because we have roads, highways, bridges...except a lot of countries have roads, highways, bridges.

His 3 paragraph diatribe about the arrogance and undeserved credit business owners receive isn't absolved by his last line caveat.

Kind of like someone saying you are a no good piece of sheet, lying, stinking, worthless MF but other than that you're okay.