Thursday, August 23, 2012

Divide and Conquer

Who's the bigger sexual predator?
The lefties are climbing all over a dim bulb Republican from Missouri like a gang of diseased chimpanzees.  Their goal is to make him the face of the Republican Party.  Any day they can get Americans talking about anything other than our incompetent president's dismal record is a good day for them.



Poll of the Day

In light of this Akin' Ass's stupid comment and selfish behavior, as well as the GOP's war on women, I've devised a poll question of the day.

Who was the greater sexual pervert?  Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton?

Please leave your answer in the comments.  As an aside, I googled Bill Clinton sex scandals and came up with a Time article titled Top 10 Political Sex Scandals. I was disappointed to see that he was only one of the top 10. I thought the whole article was going to be about him...

Imagine This...

From the Romney-Ryan campaign’s White People for Romney get out the vote effort:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden are the wrong choice for White Americans -- plain and simple.

Their vision for America would be devastating to our community, putting the economic security of millions of families at risk and rolling back major victories that we have fought for together.

It's up to all of us to make sure they don't get the chance to put their vision into action. Here's what you can do right now: Help get the truth out about their agenda. Join White Americans for Romney, an online forum where we can come together and organize over the coming months.

It is a place you can make calls to talk with white voters about the issues, plan events, find ways to volunteer and help get out the vote in your neighborhood -- because everyone needs to know what's at stake this fall.

Obama’s czars represent the most extreme elements of his party, and by surrounding himself with them, Obama has doubled down on the left’s radical ideology.

124 comments:

Always On Watch said...

Recently, Dana Milbank stated the following in the WaPo: In Tampa on Tuesday, those drafting the GOP platform agreed to retain a plank calling for a constitutional amendment banning abortion without specifying exceptions for cases of rape. In other words, the Akin position.

True? If so, then the Dems will be easily able to portray Akin as the face of the Republican Party.

BTW, Milbank's entire essay is HERE. No WaPo subscription needed because, yesterday, I put the entire essay up on Infidel Bloggers Alliance.

PS to Duck: You might be shocked by my position on this topic.

Always On Watch said...

Addendum: I'm going to post that same thing at my own site tomorrow.

The Debonair Dudes World said...

You mean Bill Clinton the Liar and Rapist in Chief!

And the Progressives talk about the "War against Women" How interesting.

Always On Watch said...

Who was the greater sexual pervert? Ted Kennedy or Bill Clinton?

My vote: the Admiral of Chappaquiddick

Ted Kennedy DESTORYED Joan, her descent quite familiar to me as I live in Northern Virginia and knew several of her hangouts and the mercy that the police took on her nearly every Saturday night).

Hillary, on the other hand, went into her marriage to Slick Willie with her eyes wide open.

Ducky's here said...

You're going to get bludgeoned with it, absolutely bludgeoned.

That jackass stopped just short of saying that god won't let a raped woman become pregnant and if she's does it's a gift because god's ways are mysterious.

Normals simply will only be pushed so far right and these feeble minded fools have gone too far.

Silverfiddle said...

You're going to get bludgeoned with it, absolutely bludgeoned.

Of course!

Obama's statist policies are flushing us down the toilet, but "Hey everybody! Look at that religious kook over there!"

You know, the one can do absolutely nothing to keep you from having an abortion...

Darth Bacon said...

It's a toss up between the Murderer or the Pervert!

Ducky's here said...

If you are raped and you get pregnant it's because you enjoyed it. It wasn't a real rape.

-----

See, what you fringe right wingers don't understand but should is that trotting out Kennedy and Clinton and trying to highlight there, admitted, moral flaws is not equivalent.

Normals are going to be extremely alienated when the American Taliban explicitly state their beliefs. This guy is a nightmare and wait till they hook an umbilical cord between these freaks and Paul Ryan, the head freak.

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
I'm not so sure that there is an umbilical cord to Paul Ryan.

That said, I can speak as a woman here. WHAT AKIN SAID IS DESPICABLE!

My best friend in college was brutally raped; she was lucky not to get pregnant and had quite a scare in that regard (before Roe v. Wade, BTW). My sister-in-law was kidnapped and raped some years after Mr. AOW and I got married; she did not get pregnant because (1) she was on the pill and (2) she had a D&C at the hospital; a pregnancy test wasn't even administered.

What Akin said probably pisses off every woman who heard those statements -- be that woman on the Right or on the Left. That Akin is on a science committee of some sort is an additional mind boggler.

Joe Conservative said...

There's only one reason why this story got traction, and it was because EVERY establishment RINO from Sean Hannity to Mitt Romney immediately started calling for Akin to withdraw.

The RNC cuts it own throat. They deserve what they get.

Joe Conservative said...

...and AoW, YOU are now part of the problem.

There was nothing at ALL controversial about what he said. There's a large group of sex researchers who believe SCIENTIFICALLY that orgasms INCREASE the likelihood of pregnancy. All Akin did was mouth the obverse opinion, that women who don't experience orgasm aren't as likely to get pregnant.

Grow the 'f up, people. You're worse than the Democrats.

Joe Conservative said...

Evidence.

Progressives can't argue it BOTH ways, that orgasms INCREASE the likelihood of pregnancy AND that rapes have NO effect. Consistency demands that either one or the other position be defended.

Joe Conservative said...

Either hang together Republicans, or you will most assuredly hang separately.

Shaw Kenawe said...

AOW: "Duck,
I'm not so sure that there is an umbilical cord to Paul Ryan."

Ryan and Akin worked together on the Personhood legislation that gives a fertilized ovum the same rights as a living, breathing, walking, talking human being.





Bunkerville said...

Mary Jo Kopechne unfortunately is unable to vote.

Silverfiddle said...

Joe: No. Men like you who say such things are the problem.

Rape is rape, and when it happens to someone it's none of your damned business or anyone else's but the victim's and her family's.

Asshat loons like Akin set back the conservative movement.

He is a 63 year old experienced politician who does not know how to talk about his views. He needs to go.

It is one thing to advocate for the sanctity of all life, including life in the womb, but when you start talking about rape and intimate women's issues, you're getting out there where the buses don't run.

He's a disgrace and he needs withdraw his stupid ass from the race.

Joe Conservative said...

Rape is rape?

Is "statutory rape" rape? Is a 13 year old who jumps in bed with her 18 year old boyfriend a "rape victim"?

Is "legitimate" rape "statutory" rape?

Grow the 'f up people.

People should be allowed to mis-speak without the pc police rushing in to protect the world from heterodox opinions. Let the science speak for itself. When science can no longer question itself, it ceases being science.

And just who you protecting from Akin, sf? Or by piling on, you think you win praise for yourself from liberals and/or "decent" people?

Lincoln had it right.

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a true maxim, that a "drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall." So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince him that you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catches his heart, which, say what he will, is the great highroad to his reason, and which, when once gained, you will find but little trouble in convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that cause really be a just one. On the contrary, assume to dictate to his judgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned and despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenues to his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and though you throw it with more than Herculean force and precision, you shall be no more be able to pierce him, than to penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw.

Such is man, and so must he be understood by those who would lead him, even to his own best interest.

Joe Conservative said...

...if you believe that what Akin said reflects badly on conservatives, then get the RNC to change its platform. Else suck it up and accept that not every Republican's opinions can be traced and tied directly to you, personally.

Learn to accept that we all have our differences.

Bunkerville said...

The issue is not legitimate rape.... the issue is that the he has has some rarified idea that a woman will not get pregnant if it is a "true" rape. That is what has women enraged. Keep at it, and we will lose any sensible woman's vote.

Thersites said...

panem et circenses...

Now even the right is feeding at the trough.

As Silverfiddle so aptly put it...

Divide and CONQUER!

Joe Conservative said...

Well Bunkerville, do women who have orgasms have a GREATER chance of getting pregnant than rape victims?

Keep at it, and we won't need science to determine the answer, we can simply ask an angry mob.

Joe Conservative said...

btw - Sensible women? Sounds like another oxymoron like "military intelligence"?

Joe Conservative said...

Hysteria is no longer just a women's condition... to confirm, just look at all the conservatives now afflicted.

KP said...

@Joe - << do women who have orgasms have a GREATER chance of getting pregnant than rape victims? >>

Why do you ask? About 1 in 15 women who are raped get pregnant. That is what matters.

Any other statisticts are irrelevant.

KP said...

Even if you want to claim that only 1 in 50 women raped get pregnant; the ratio is irrelevant.

Jack Whyte said...

Is fertilized ovum liberal-speak for unborn child?

Joe Conservative said...

Can science ever be wrong?

Female hysteria was a once-common medical diagnosis, made exclusively in women, which is today no longer recognized by modern medical authorities as a medical disorder. Its diagnosis and treatment were routine for many hundreds of years in Western Europe. Hysteria was widely discussed in the medical literature of the 19th century. Women considered to be suffering from it exhibited a wide array of symptoms including faintness, nervousness, sexual desire, insomnia, fluid retention, heaviness in abdomen, muscle spasm, shortness of breath, irritability, loss of appetite for food or sex, and "a tendency to cause trouble".

Any other statistic is irrelevant?

I had heard that the ratio was 1 in 20, NOT 1 in 15.

Of course, who knows for certain? Perhaps NOW we can find out what the real number is. And we can thank Akin for it.

Cuz I don't think that Akin said that ABSOLUTELY no rape victims EVER get pregnant. If he did, I must have MISSED that.

Joe Conservative said...

btw - According to feminists more women suffer from domestic abuse on Superbowl Sunday than ANY other day of the year.

Pretty scientific, huh!

Silverfiddle said...

"People should be allowed to mis-speak without the pc police rushing in to protect the world from heterodox opinions."

I agree, but that's not the case, is it?

The press acts as the democrat party praetorian guard, blowing off Gaffmaster Joe Biden and stumblebum Obama, but jumping on the most innocuous GOP comment.

Smart politicians know that and adjust. The GOP's Akin' ass ain't one of them. He's too stupid, and he needs to get off the stage.

RNC Platform? Who even pays attention to that crap anymore?

I am pro-life, and I have written about abortion here, but I am with AOW on this one.

Thersites said it best: Bread and circuses.

Joe Conservative said...

Smart politicians know that and adjust. The GOP's Akin' ass ain't one of them. He's too stupid.

Akin is NOT the establishment OR tea party candidate of choice.

And THAT is the ONLY reason for the current pile-on Akin.

conservativesonfire said...

If Joe is on our side, we are doomed.

Clinton to my knowlhas not killed any women, yet.

Ducky's here said...

Sorry Farmer but you and the rest of the knuckle draggers are going to be bludgeoned with this.

Better make it go away fast.

My suggestion, have Rush "Talent on Loan from Synthetic Morphine" Limbaugh claim that the hurricane bearing down on the R convention is a result of Obama's weather machine. That should appeal to the majority on the right.

Mark Adams said...

I can't believe this is even being portrayed as an overall Republican attitude.
Akin misuse of one word "legitimate", and the liberal/progressives and their mouth pieces in the media hang a sign around the elephant’s neck.
One Republican stupidity out of tens of millions of Repubs, doesn't speak of the whole gaggle, and Americans know this.
The left is looking pretty damn stupid trying to make this in to something that it’s not.

KP said...

<< the hurricane bearing down on the R convention is a result of Obama's weather machine. >>

You are too funny!

Since there is very little chance of the storm mbeing around Monday evening in Tampa I think the real forcast should be about the fault line that is developing between the Chicago Obama re-election camp and the Washington re-election camp. That is a natural disaster waiting to happen with greater certainty.

@Joe -- it doesn't matter if it is 1 in 20 or 1 in 50. What is your point? The ratio is irrelevant.

Silverfiddle said...

I enjoyed the weather machine comment as well, but it's not really accurate according to experience.

If Obama built a machine to control the weather, it would probably instead spit out bananas, or cause a mine cave in or a dam to burst somewhere.

Even if by some miracle he could get his weather machine working, Uncle Joe Biden would stagger in and damage it with a hammer or somehow render it unusable.

Joe Conservative said...

Make it go away? Why would I want to? The LA Times is already back- tracking on the so-called "settled" science. It's time the mobocracy caught up.

Rob said...

My biggest issue with Clinton is and always was that he pissed away 3 yrs of his 2nd term denying that he did anything wrong. And BILLIONS of dollars in legal fees along the way.

If you've got the stones to screw around, then at least have the stones to own up to the deed. Screw an intern - hell, screw an intern's chicken for all I care. But don't cower and lie when confronted about your nasty deviances!

If Clinton had had the courage to simply say, "Hell yes, I did Monica, but that's between me and my family." then the whole thing could have been largely a non-issue.

But then again, the cowardly bastard also didn't inhale...

Ducky's here said...

Let me point out Rob.

1. Clinton didn't make the ridiculous allegations.

2. If questioning is not relevant to a legitimate investigation you are free to lie as much as you want. May not be upright but it is not perjury and not grounds for impeachment.

Your beef is with Gingrich.

Mark Adams said...

There is no approved platform at this time. Only a draft.
The NY Times/ Washington Post, Huffington Post/ Etc. seem to forget to make this point.

Silverfiddle said...

So which has done more harm to women? The GOP platform, or Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, and Chris Dodd, and the liberal women who stood by their liberal men and looked the other way?

Always On Watch said...

Joe,
There's a large group of sex researchers who believe SCIENTIFICALLY that orgasms INCREASE the likelihood of pregnancy.

I've read something to that effect.

However, a significant number of pregnancies occur even if the woman does not have an orgasm.

Well, the best stats we have actually include women's statements as to whether or not they reached climax. But women do lie about that a lot, you know.

The most significant factor in fertilization is, of course, the time of ovulation.

PS: I'm quite grown up, thank you.

Always On Watch said...

Joe,
Either hang together Republicans, or you will most assuredly hang separately.

I won't argue with that.

Frankly, I'm well beyond deciding for whom to vote based on that candidate's position on abortion. There are other issues!

Always On Watch said...

PS: A woman beaten into unconsciousness and/or given a date-rape drug has no control over the state of her orgasm. It's biology.

Just sayin'.

Always On Watch said...

Shaw,
Ryan and Akin may agree on many issues for all I know.

I don't live in Missouri.

Always On Watch said...

Mark,
There is no approved platform at this time. Only a draft.

Good point.

J.O.B. said...

"2. If questioning is not relevant to a legitimate investigation you are free to lie as much as you want. May not be upright but it is not perjury and not grounds for impeachment."

Ducky- Bill Clinton was guilty of perjury. When someone is deposed, they are administered the same oath as in the court room. He was under oath. He committed perjury. He was subsequently found guilty by the HOR, and impeached. I would like to add though, he was not found guilty of perjury. He was found guilty of obstruction.

And in my opinion, should have been found guilty of bad taste. At least JFK cheated with Marilyn.

Ducky's here said...

Where did you go to law school?

You can lie on the stand about matters that have nothing to do with a crime. Getting it on with Monica Lewinsky was tawdry but no crime.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"So which has done more harm to women? The GOP platform, or Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton, and Chris Dodd, and the liberal women who stood by their liberal men and looked the other way?"

None of those men proposed legislation that would have made government force them to carry pregnancies against their will or to have government insert vaginal probes into them for no medical reason.

What they did in their personal lives, which is not admirable, did not affect the personal liberty of American women.

So yes, the GOP legislators who want to pass laws that affect women's lives are worse than Kennedy, Clinton, and Dodd.

Liberalmann said...

" Their goal is to make him the face of the Republican Party."
---

This the the GOP platform on abortion and Ryan signed off on it when he created similar Legislation with Akins.

Joe Conservative said...

PS: I'm quite grown up, thank you.

Really? Rape may be dispicable, but nothing Akin said, was. Do you believe that conflating the two was a mark of maturity? jes wondrin.

Finntann said...

@Shaw: None of those men proposed legislation that would have made government force them to carry pregnancies against their will...

But it's okay to make the rest of us pay for it?

Frankly, I don't care whether you or any other woman gets an abortion or not... however forcing the rest of us to pay for the consequences of your actions is another matter entirely.

You do understand consequences don't you? I don't feel obligated to pay for your abortions any more than I feel obligated to pay for your breast implants. It's elective surgery, and I will grant 'except in cases of rape or incest'.

Steve: As far as the GOP party platform goes, all that exists is a draft in committee. There is no platform until one is ratified at the convention by the delegates, and that has not occured yet.

Even if it were to be ratified the language is "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

Good luck getting 3/4ths of the states to ratify that. It is nothing more than a bone tossed to the fundamentalist right.

There are proposals that have been put forth for DC Statehood and Same Sex Marriage that have been put forth for the DNC Platform.

Frankly, the platforms are pretty much irrelevant anyway.

Up to our asses in alligators and you want to argue over how deep the water is... nice.

Joe Conservative said...

Perhaps you can point out the really dispicable part... that's not editorial.

“It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare,” Mr. Akin said of pregnancies from rape. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child.”

Joe Conservative said...

In other words... punish the rapist, not the unborn child!

Joe Conservative said...

Its dispicable to state a FACT, that in our society, pregnancies from rape is extremely rare? I'm damn PROUD of THAT. fact!

viburnum said...

Steve: "It IS part of the 2012 Republiscum party platform:"

And has been for 36 years

1976: There can be no doubt that the question of abortion, despite the complex nature of its various issues, is ultimately concerned with equality of rights under the law. While we recognize differing views on this question among Americans in general—and in our own Party—we affirm our support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children. We also support the Congressional efforts to restrict the use of taxpayers' dollars for abortion.

2008: Faithful to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence, we assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it.

Let me know when man bites dog.

skudrunner said...

Did you hear that Unemployment claims went up.

The incompetent incumbent is accomplishing what he wants to. Make something other than his horrible record the main topic.

He puts the serial rapist and adulterer on the campaign stump and says he supports women. No Duck Clinton didn't kill any women but he sure ruined ta lot of their lives.

The good thing about Bill is is will be all about Clinton and little about Bummer. Somehow they must be a little nervous to put him on the trail.

Joe Conservative said...

Perhaps its even "dispicable" to wishfully believe that G-d had given women a biologically based defense against pregancy from forced copulation... is THAT in ANY way "dispicable"?

What's dispicable is strengthening the RINO mentality of establishment Republicans by condeming Akin... a man who defends his convictions REGARDLESS of what popular opinion of the moment might dictate.

Finntann said...

Akin, asshat that he is, can run and win or lose on the basis of his positions.

It is no ones business other than to the good people of Missouri what his positions are, nor do any of your opinions matter, except for those of you from Missouri.

I take exception to anyone not from Missouri calling for his withdrawal. You are all entitled to your views, and may express them in voting for YOUR elected representatives. This is not some big happy direct participatory Democracy, it is a Republic.

So while I may oppose his views, if the good people of Missouri want to elect an asshat to the senate, that is their perogative and those of you from California, Massachusetts, or Colorado, or anywhere other than Missouri don't have a say in the matter.

The Republican Party in accordance with its bylaws may expel or censure Akins if it is proper and it so desires. Democrats... it's none of your damn business, so just shut up and be happy you're running against an asshat.

My opinion is the nationalization of local elections was unforseen by the founders and will be the doom of us.

Cheers!

viburnum said...

Joe: "Akin... a man who defends his convictions REGARDLESS of what popular opinion of the moment might dictate."

And when he goes down in flames, taking control of the Senate with him, will you be praising his Pyrrhic personality? Or damning his arrogant stupidity?

Finntann said...

And before FT pipes in...

FOR GOD'S SAKE MAN YOUR USE OF THE WORD 'DISPICABLE' IS DESPICABLE.

If you're going to toss a word around like chicken feed, at least you can spell it correctly.

Now, please don't 'dispise' me for this constructive criticism.

Joe Conservative said...

Would Akin lose the Senate seat if the RNC didn't fold and pull his funding? If Akin loses, it will be because the RNC doesn't have the conviction of their own party platform and is unfit to represent the majority of citizens who support it.

Joe Conservative said...

Finny....

You'll make a great secretary for someone one day.

Joe Conservative said...

I'm hooked on phonics.... so shoot me!

Shaw Kenawe said...

"You do understand consequences don't you? I don't feel obligated to pay for your abortions any more than I feel obligated to pay for your breast implants. It's elective surgery, and I will grant 'except in cases of rape or incest'."--Fintann

Oh spare me your outrage. I have to pay for your wars that kill pregnant women, fetuses and children, don't I. Or do you think GWB's excellent adventure in Iraq only killed nonpregnant women?

It is against the law for federal money to be allocated for abortions. So what are you squawking about?

What the GOP wants to do is outlaw a legal medical procedure even if it is privately paid for.

That's government forced pregnancies.

We understand exactly where your insistence on punishing women for having sex comes from. Consequences? Why not castrate the men who impregnate girls and women? What about their responsibilities?

Not all abortions are about "consequences" from having sex. It is not any of your business why girls and women seek abortions. So long as your precious tax dollars are not involved, it's not your concern.




viburnum said...

Finntann: "My opinion is the nationalization of local elections was unforseen by the founders and will be the doom of us."

Possibly. It's difficult to future-proof anything.

While ignorance and stupidity are certainly no impediment to election to public office, it seems unlikely that Akin can unscrew this particular pooch by November. Standing up and drawing the enemies fire might be heroic, but provoking an artillery barrage on your own side is just brain dead. The stakes are too high for insufferable arrogance.

-FJ said...

I guess that he should have KNOWN THAT his own side was STACKED with SUCH a craven bunch of woosies, eh vibruum?

viburnum said...

No FJ, he should have known to put his mind in motion before putting his mouth in gear and spouting his half-assed theories. If nothing else it demonstrates a complete lack of foresight and political acumen.

-FJ said...

Nope. In reality, your response reflects your own.

-FJ said...

If you want to elect a new batch of flip-flopping Romney RINOs to DC, thatS certainly your "right"'... but don't pretend to be surprised when they break ranks and vote with Democrats for RomneyCare.

-FJ said...

...cuz at the RNC, when the going gets tough... we fold and follow the Democrats!

viburnum said...

Actually I'd like to elect a full slate of die hard libertarians who genuflect at mention of the Constitution, but that isn't bloody likely to happen. Meanwhile I'm going to do the best I can, which is support people who can win on similar principles, and do everything I can to hold their feet to the fire afterwards. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible.

Ducky's here said...

My guess Finntann is that you have coverage paying for your penis pills.

I'm certain.

Finntann said...

@We understand exactly where your insistence on punishing women for having sex comes from.

Who said anything about punishing women for having sex, you're confusing your fantasies with reality again.

I said actions have consequences and the rest of us shouldn't have to pay for them, or subsidize them. While castration may be a bit extreme (more fantasy there?), I fully support enforcement of responsibility on the other half of the gene pool. But again, responsibility lies soley with the two people involved. In all honesty, the state is quite inept at enforcement of those responsibilites.

My beliefs on the limits of federal authority would dictate that I say that the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

Your argument that "What the GOP wants to do is outlaw a legal medical procedure even if it is privately paid for." is fairly weak from a moral standpoint... slavery was legal once too, so I fail to see your point.

"That's government forced pregnancies."

From what? Government forced sex?

What are you going to argue next, government forced liver disease from the legalization of alcohol?

You disassociate the couples choice to have sex from the consequences of that action. It is the standard Nanny state response.

"Not all abortions are about "consequences" from having sex. " Actually >90 percent of them are. I'd be willing to wager you'd be just as incensed if the platform attempted to ban all but medically necessary abortions... but please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption.

My wars? Gee, I didn't realize I had such power. Last time I checked we were collectively responsible for the actions of our elected officials and last time I checked about 40% of Democrats voted for that joint resolution. If anything, it is more your war than mine, as I don't recall any Libertarians voting for it.

You also seem to overlook my main point that this is a non-issue anyway, there is no way in hell the GOP is going to get 3/4ths of the states to ratify a pro-life amendment to the constitution. You may as well base your political decisions on whether or not a particular candidate is going to invade Canada.

Smoke and mirrors baby, smoke and mirrors.

Cheers!

Finntann said...

Ducky, your interest in my penis is flattering, but sadly misplaced, as my nine years on the Cape was spent on the Upper Cape not the Lower Cape... but keep looking buddy, I'm sure you'll find someone someday... perhaps a member of that stage crew you mentioned previously.

Your comment was not only childish, but incorrect as well... of that I'm certain.

But if you must know, no, I don't believe that should be government subsidized or mandated either. As to whether or not an insurance company covers it... that is their business decision to make.

Shaw Kenawe said...

"Your argument that "What the GOP wants to do is outlaw a legal medical procedure even if it is privately paid for." is fairly weak from a moral standpoint... slavery was legal once too, so I fail to see your point."

How is a woman seeking a legal medical procedure for her own personal medical reasons, and the reason for that decision not anyone's business but hers, her partner's, and her doctor's the same as enslavement of an entire race of people?

viburnum said...

Shaw: "How is a woman seeking a legal medical procedure for her own personal medical reasons, and the reason for that decision not anyone's business but hers, her partner's, and her doctor's the same as enslavement of an entire race of people?"

Because ultimately it entails the same arbitrary control over the life, and fate of another human being.

Finntann said...

Shaw, it is only legal because we say it is legal, being legal doesn't make it moral or ethical. That was my point about slavery... it was at one time legal, it was however both immoral and unethical.

Roughly 55 million abortions have been performed in the US since Roe v Wade. How is that in any way moral or ethical. I would venture to guess that the total number of humans aborted far exceeds the total number that were enslaved in this country. That is how I equate the two.

You seem to overlook the fact that you are not arguing with a religious fundamentalist. I am not opposed to abortion in all circumstance, nor am I opposed to the use of fetal stem cells in research from those abortions that do occur. I do find it morally reprehensible that abortion has in fact become in the majority of cases a postconceptive method of birth control.

Personally, I'd like to see that particular plank in the platform not get ratified at the convention. As I said, it was a bone tossed to the religious right. It is completely and utterly irrelevant as there are going to be zero consequences from it's inclusion. A constitutional amendment is never going to ratified and there are more pressing issues we ought to be concerned with.

If Romney got up on the podium and said he'd outlaw abortion, I'd vote for Johnson, despite the fact he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of getting elected. If he say's he'll support a constitutional amendment redefining 14th amendment protections to the unborn, I'll say Yeah, good luck with that, let me know how that works out for you.

It's not going to happen.

Me, I'll vote for the candidate most likely to get elected that I think will result in the least federal encroachment on our Constitutional Republic, and currently that is Romney.

Cheers!

J.O.B. said...

Ducky- I studied law at U of I. Where did you study?

Kidding, I never studied law in college, but have been involved in the legal process a few times.

" Getting it on with Monica Lewinsky was tawdry but no crime."

You are correct, an affair with Lewinsky is/was not a crime. But again, that's not what he was impeached for. He was directly asked in a deposition (while under oath) if he had an affair with Lewinsky. He said no, which is perjury. This incident lead to the obstruction charge, which was why he was impeached.

Now I guess we can continue to debate this fact, but before we do, you'll have to define "IS" for me.

Z said...

"The Republicans will get abortion overturned" ..that's as silly as Republicans want dirty water and hate women and the poor.

SF, great link "white people for ROmney"...isn't that amazing, really?
IMAGINE if that really existed? But..for Blacks? NO PROBLEM. geeeZ

Ducky's here said...

Another Bagger heard from


You really need to keep a tighter leash on these morons. New Hampshire is still in play and you don't want these butt nuggets running around loose.

viburnum said...

Steve: "If you eat junk food like Chickflick, why should I have to pay for the consequences of your high cholesterol and heart attacks, or the millions contacting Diabetes from bad diets?"

Does that mean you're now opposed to Obama care?

"It's your religious moral belief that abortion is murder, not backed up by Science."

It's also a philosophical belief founded in both science and law. Don't fool yourself that it's strictly a religious argument.

"I prefer not to have to live by your religious beliefs. And it's unamerican of you to try and force me to."

By your logic you should be free to rob banks if you like, and it would be 'un-american' to stop you.

Lisa said...

I love how the media thinks a foot tap in a men's room is more news worthy than this

Finntann said...

@It's your religious moral belief that abortion is murder, not backed up by Science.

Science? So you are what? Arguing that a human fetus is not a human life? Whether or not abortion is murder is a philosophical, moral, ethical, and legal argument, not a scientific one. Any scientific examination of the subject can reveal one thing... that a fetus is human and is alive. It can not reveal whether or not it is ethical to destroy it.

Truth is, you simply assign less value to a five month old human organism than a ten month old human organism.

Perhaps we should relax the standard even more... obviously an infant is not much more fully human than a fetus. Shall we go back to leaving unwanted infants out for the wolves? Honestly, from a 'scientific' viewpoint what's the difference? Neither the fetus nor the eight month old is capable of being self-sufficient and one could argue that the infant is not much more self aware than a chicken. Scientifically speaking, a newborn infant has not yet differentiated self.

It is an odd contradiction when under the law if the woman wants the baby it is immoral, unethical, and illegal for someone else to kill the fetus, but if she doesn't want it, then it is okay for someone she hires to kill the fetus.

"If you think it's immoral, don't do it, but don't force me to follow you."

The whole point of law is the enforcement of a common moral standard, so your entire argument there is specious. Unfoubtedly, some think it's okay to steal what they need if thay can't afford it... shall they be given free reign as well?

Perhaps by your logic, it should be okay to hire a hitman to kill your grandmother when she becomes an inconvenience and unwanted. After all, in most cases, she has less life in front of her than a developing fetus and a greater potential for self-defense.

And I don't think any of the libertarians or conservatives here have stated that you should have to pay for their healthcare and lifestyle choices... that is a liberal proposition.

Fact is, so long as you don't steal or rob to support your habit and don't expect me to pay for your rehab or hospitalization, I could care less whether you ate McDonlds or smoked meth three times a day or not.

Fact is, where it up to me, you would have the freedom to do whatever you wanted so long as you didn't screw with anybody else.

The difference between us, is that some of us define an unborn baby as someone else, while you apparently don't.

The other side of that coin is the expectation of freedom with the consequences of that freedom paid for by society at large.

Finntann said...

Robbing a bank is a crime. Having an abortion is not.

Unless of course we pass a law making it a crime.

You are running laps around a circular argument.

The debate is not about whether abortion is legal or not, the debate is about whether it should be legal or not, and if legal, under what circumstances.

Personally, I think it's a pretty damn expensive form of birth control and kind of like closing the pasture gate after the cow's gotten out.

Always On Watch said...

Joe,
Rape may be dispicable, but nothing Akin said, was. Do you believe that conflating the two was a mark of maturity?

Don't lecture me about maturity.

If Akin's daughter or sister had been "forcibly" raped, he wouldn't have said such an inane thing. Rather, he would know that rape changes a woman's life forever.

How about this? If Akin were raped, would he claim that it wasn't rape at all if he had an orgasm?

Now, I don't hold with the entirety of the recent definition of rape.

Ask my best friend how being raped ruined her life.

Ask my sister-in-law.

The latter was hardly the vestal virgin; she had "been around the block," so to speak. But she did cooperate when she was kidnapped; she got out alive, got the bastard extradited to Florida and executed. He was a serial rapist; some 30 known rapes and three dead women (confirmed). Nobody knows for certain how many he actually raped.

As for your statement AoW, YOU are now part of the problem, you know have me wondering about YOU. If you have daughters, I feel sorry for them because, were one of them raped and impregnated, you'd automatically believe that she enjoyed forcible rape because she didn't "shut the whole thing down."

Always On Watch said...

Duck,
You really need to keep a tighter leash on these morons.

There are plenty of morons on the Left too. Do you want them leashed?

viburnum said...

Steve: "I prefer not to have to live by your religious beliefs. ... Robbing a bank is a crime."

And, "Thou shalt not steal" is a religious proscription against doing so. but apparently you're OK with that one.

One part of the point of having laws is to provide society with a certain level of predictability regarding behavior, and offering recourse against those who would prefer not to live within the norm.

Those of us who find it as onerous to kill a child six months before it's birth as six months after are simply pointing out the inconsistency in that standard.



jez said...

"you simply assign less value to a five month old human organism than a ten month old human organism."

Yes, I do. I care less about humans who have never yet been sentient. I think it's weird that you don't, or claim not to.

"It is an odd contradiction..."

Not really a contradiction, it makes sense as a property argument.

"Honestly, from a 'scientific' viewpoint what's the difference?"

One obvious and relevant difference is that an infant can be adopted.

Always On Watch said...

Jez mentioned:

"you simply assign less value to a five month old human organism than a ten month old human organism."

Yes, I do. I care less about humans who have never yet been sentient. I think it's weird that you don't, or claim not to.

"It is an odd contradiction..."

Not really a contradiction, it makes sense as a property argument.


I'm not sure, but I think that the OT has a lesser punishment for the killing of an unborn child (early term?) than for the killing of a sentient person.

I could be wrong about that passage in the OT. So many laws in the Torah!

Steve said...

The question of "when" was answered 40 years ago and seems reasonable. If your religious beliefs say different that is your religious belief and should not be forced on those who do not hold those beliefs,
You just restated your religious argument which is your delusion.

Joe Conservative said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Conservative said...

Don't lecture me about maturity.

I'll lecture whoever I feel needs a good talking to.

I acknowledge that rape is despicable. But you're insistence that victimized women have the "right" to judge and in turn, victimize an innocent life implanted in their womb is as FULL of hubris as any politician's demand to pre-judge it "innocent" for you.

For the perpetrator of any crime against an innocent truly merits the "despicable" label. That includes a raped woman who chooses "abortion" over "motherhood".

Two wrongs never made a "right".

And for the record, I have a daughter. And no grandchild of mine would EVER go unloved as a result of a crime committed by his father OR mother.

Joe Conservative said...

And would I "disown" her if she had an abortion? That depends. Were she to have one "without deep and severely painful regret"... I probably SHOULD.

Joe Conservative said...

and for your information, AoW, i don't believe that a raped woman is incapable of becoming pregnant. Best save your strawmen for Holloween.

Joe Conservative said...

The difference between us, Shaw, is that I acknowledge that I AM an ass. In all your hubristic outrage, YOU pretend that YOU are NOT, perhaps ONLY because it has not so been written down.... yet!

Joe Conservative said...

erratum - Steve (above).

Joe Conservative said...

There are PLENTY of women who use abortion as a form of BIRTH CONTROL and many abortions

Please, PLEASSE, don't insist on pretending that they are all so VERY "regretful".

Some abortion facts having NOTHING to do with "rape".

Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and about four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.

• In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred.

• Each year, two percent of women aged 15–44 have an abortion. Half have had at least one previous abortion.

• At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.


So "where" is the evidence of 50 million "regrets"?

Joe Conservative said...

...in the bottom of a "Medical Waste" container, THAT is where.

Always On Watch said...

Joe,
There are PLENTY of women who use abortion as a form of BIRTH CONTROL and many abortions.

True. Revolving door in many cases.

Please, PLEASSE, don't insist on pretending that they are all so VERY "regretful".

I find regretful a relative term.

Many late-term abortions, however, are performed because of medical problems with the fetus -- including no cerebrum and the like. Even Georgetown Medical Center does that particular type of procedure on an individual-case basis. We can argue about the question of ethics in such cases forever, but such cases do happen. Sad, very sad. I recently saw "the baby in the jar" at a museum; the baby was full term or nearly so. I believe that the medical term for the anomaly is ancephalophy on ancephalophic -- something like that. Videos are on YouTube.

Always On Watch said...

At least half of American women will experience an unintended pregnancy by age 45, and, at current rates, one in 10 women will have an abortion by age 20, one in four by age 30 and three in 10 by age 45.

Ye gods!

I had a pregnancy scare when I was 47 years old. Talk about being panicked! I never had to make "the decision," thank God. Whew!

On the other hand, I know one woman who gave birth to her one and only at age 46. Everything worked out just fine. Back in those days, no doctor would have done an abortion on her anyway as there was no medical basis for one. The woman was in robust health.

Joe Conservative said...

Sometimes we need to accept the hand dealt us and hope for the best. There's no need to "punish" an innocent just because we're dealt a bad hand. Christians say that they have "trust in Him". What does that mean?

FreeThinke said...

To all you Feminazis out there:

The abortion controversy has never been about ill advised attempts on the part of GOP legislators "to control WOMEN'S lives."

I has been -- and remains -- about "preserving the lives of helpless BABIES trapped in the wombs of careless, selfish, stupid women who have no respect for LIFE.

Even if you've been forcibly RAPED at KNIFE-POINT by a BIG, BLACK, BUCK -- or a FAT, WHITE ,REDNECK, the BABY you might start to carry as a result of that rape is the MOST INNOCENT party involved.

If you vain, selfish, stupid, pleasure-seeking women had an real RESPECT for LIFE, itself, it would ever cross your mind to do anything but ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for the LIFE GROWING WITHIN YOU, and do everything in your power to keep it healthy, and see that it gets the healthiest possible start towards independence once it leaves your body.

There are no two ways about it: ABORTION is MURDER pure and simple, and unless we are to emend our thinking to believe there are times when MURDER is a GOOD THING, we're stuck with ACCEPTANCE of RESPONSIBILITY for whatever happens to us -- EVEN WHEN IT'S NOT STRICTLY OR FAULT.

Why should a BABY be made to pay the ultimate price for someone ELSE'S SIN?

~ FreeThinke

Joe Conservative said...

...and I now publicly apologize to AoW for lecturing, and being such a "prideful" and utterly insufferable ass.

Joe Conservative said...

"Women's health issues should not be decided by politicians, who are mostly men."

I would merely drop the word "women's" from the above statement to agree with the President.

Steve said...

But that's what Romney/Ryan and the Republiscums want to do.

Thersites said...

...not as badly as the DemonRats.

Thersites said...

Death panels, anyone?

Now shush, lest I unplug your respirator, Steve.

J.O.B. said...

Abortion should be kept legal for
1-Rape/incest
2-Quality of child's life. Meaning horrible health issues that will effect the little bit of life a child has outside the womb.
3-Pregnancy being life threatening to the Mother.

That's my official position.

skudrunner said...

Liberals will protest and yell about a mass murderer being executed and then stand up for killing as a means of birth control. They seem to be conflicted in what their lofty ideals stand for.

Always On Watch said...

FT,
I agree with you in theory.

However, I myself decided long ago that, were I raped, I'd have an IMMEDIATE D&C without even having a pregnancy test -- as did my sister-in-law. A D&C under those circumstances also deals with an STD -- or some STD's, anyway.

Do not IUD's prevent the implantation of a zygote? If so, then using an IUD is a kind of abortion, isn't it?

Or are we defining abortion in a different way?

Sheesh, this discussion is complicated.

Always On Watch said...

FT,
A woman who has been raped is not careless, selfish, stupid. She is the victim of a crime.

Always On Watch said...

Joe,
Apology noted and accepted.

Thx.

viburnum said...

Steve: "You just restated your religious argument which is your delusion."

I have no religious argument. As I said earlier, my opposition is based on philosphy, science, and law, the latter two of which offer far firmer ground from which to debate the issue. You seem incapable of comprehending that not everyone who opposes abortion does so on the grounds of religion. I wonder why?

Finntann said...

-V- Steve is incapable of comprehending lots of different things. He's just hung up on religion as a counter to your argument because he has no other rational counterpoint. He operates under the inane concept that we are all right wing religious fundamentalists and his argument is simply the repetitive regurgitation of talking points he picked up elsewhere.

Jez One obvious and relevant difference is that an infant can be adopted.

I may be mistaken, but I do believe that unborn ones can be adopted too. They are generally turned over to the adoptive parents upon birth, everything else done in advance.

Cheers!



FreeThinke said...

Sorry, AOW, but ABORTION is MURDER.

Anyway, according the Feminazis I rail against, ALL sexual intercourse between men and women is "RAPE."

My point -- and it's well supported by biology and the laws of logic -- is that even when true rape occurs [Date Rape, Marital Rape, Cries of Rape the morning after Consensual Sex, and even "Statutory Rape" when both partners are WILLING, will NEVER be considered "true rape" by me] the BABY is TOTALLY INNOCENT.

Why should a BABY -- a unique, individual human life -- be KILLED just because it was conceived THROUGH NO FAULT OF ITS OWN -- under unpleasant circumstances?

A baby is a baby is a baby, isn't it?

Remember Johnny Belinda -- one of the most beautifully touching movies ever made?

You know I'm right. ;-)

~ FT

Liberalmann said...

The scariest part is Akins is on the Congressional Science Committee. Yup the GOP and science, going hand in hand once again.

beamish said...

I will vote for Todd Akin, because Claire McAsshole needs to go.

Rational Nation USA said...

Simply incredible the the mount of comments this thread attracted.

Always On Watch said...

FT,
There is such a thing as "date rape," but I use a different definition than others perhaps.

If a woman goes on a date with a man and he then beats her to obtain what he wants, that qualifies as "real rape" in my book.

Going on a date should not give a man the entitlement to having sexual intercourse with a woman. And the woman should also not put herself in a dangerous situation, either.

Sorry, AOW, but ABORTION is MURDER.

We won't agree on that. I would say that abortion after the 4th week of pregnancy is murder.

I would also say that the termination of an ectopic pregnancy is not abortion per se; the fertilized egg has to be implanted in the endometrium before pregnancy actually takes place. Otherwise, the IUD is also murder (by your definition). It does take about 5 days for the zygote to implant in the endometrium; see THIS.

About the pill....Not all women can take the pill, which is NOT 100% effective.

There are contraindications, and I know about the cardiovascular disease complication because I am one of those women who was advised not take to take the pill because of the family history of heart problems on my mother's side.

There are also drug interactions and adverse effects, some minor and some not. I know about those because I had a few of those problems as well.

The list of adverse complications includes cancer. Several women whom I personally know who used the pill long term did develop cancer; all of these women had a family history of breast cancer. In fairness, I must mention that the data about the pill and the cancer connection are inconsistent.

Millions of women avoid pregnancy by using barrier methods (two at a time), and, if raped, those women are particularly susceptible to pregnancy.

We discuss the topic of abortion as if every woman is on the pill. I assure you that she is not!

In many respects, the pill has caused significant problems. For one thing, it is assumed by most men that every woman is on the pill and, thus, "fair game." The availability of on-demand abortion is also a factor in this.

Back in my dating days (before Roe v. Wade, and I didn't start dating until my freshman year in college, BTW), EVERY man I dated or who asked me out on a date asked, "Are you on the pill?" If not, HE took precautions -- or, in some cases, backed out of the date (I'm speaking of first dates), especially if the man who asked me out on a date knew that I was a college student (Since when do guys assume that every woman in college "puts out"?). Obviously, those who backed out on the first date assumed that we would automatically be having sex on our first date. I found that kind of sense of entitlement abhorrent -- and insulting.

Damn, I'm glad that I'm not a dating woman of child-bearing age now!

We should not leave out of this discussion that men have a responsibility for birth control too. Like it or not, guys, you can use a condom.

My cousin got pregnant at least two times while on the pill; she was married, BTW.

according the Feminazis I rail against, ALL sexual intercourse between men and women is "RAPE."

Well, that is clearly disgusting on the part of the "Feminazis."

Always On Watch said...

Rational Nation,
Apparently, the topic of sex is THE eternally-interesting topic, huh?

beamish said...

I'm more upset that Todd Akin didn't prepare for an interview with Charles Jerko (all answers to Charles Jaco questions should begin with "Well Charles, if you would pull your head out of your leftist ass and look around...")

That said, I take Todd Akin at his word that he misspoke, and accept his clarifications of what he was trying to say.

I'm ready to move on. Claire McAsshole is so neck deep involved in her ties to the Obama administration that her own family calls her "Obama's bitch." Missouri was ready to be rid of her. We'd vote her ass out yesterday if it were legal to do so today.

It didn't surprise me to see the leftist Mitt Romney and his new pal Paul Ryan from the Tea Party Communists go on the attack against Todd Akin. Romney's quarter-billion dollar smear campaign against actual conservatives in the GOP primaries was clue enough we have a loser on our hands. Now we have virtual advertisements for Claire McAsshole courtesy of her fellow leftists Romney and Ryan. The local media starts every news cast with "Todd Akin has X days to resign from the Senate race," a daily countdown to an event that is never going to happen. This isn't helped by the allegedly conservative national talk radio shows daily calling for his resignation.

Conservatives should help the Romney campaign as much as Romney has helped us, by bussing people in droves to the polls to vote for Obama.








viburnum said...

I think it was Robert Heinlein who said "there are only four topics worth discussing; religion, politics, money, and sex."

viburnum said...

Earth to Steve!

Forget to take your meds today?

FreeThinke said...

Dead Ted is just about the only scumbum who had the power to make Bill Klinton look semi-respectable just by contrast.

~FT