Real Rape Victims Don't Get Pregnant

[Imperium Immortalis]

Let me Highlight something for you.

I shit you not...

“But I also believe that this election is about a wide-range of very important issues, starting with the economy and the type of country we will be leaving our children and grandchildren. We’ve had 42 straight months of unacceptably high unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, and Democratic leaders in Washington who are focused on growing government, instead of jobs. That is my primary focus in this campaign and while there are those who want to distract from that, knowing they cannot defend the Democrats’ failed economic record of the last four years, that will continue to be my focus in the months ahead.”

What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?
Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims.

[Norstal]

Also, only read first and last pages, but Scott Brown came out hard against this buffoon and called for him to withdraw. Good on him. Good on everyone, regardless of party, who calls on him to withdraw.

Man, to think the Democrats recalled Wiener for showing his erection on the internet. The GOP better recall this guy for doing something far worse.

[Ashmoria]

Also, only read first and last pages, but Scott Brown came out hard against this buffoon and called for him to withdraw. Good on him. Good on everyone, regardless of party, who calls on him to withdraw.

Man, to think the Democrats recalled Wiener for showing his erection on the internet. The GOP better recall this guy for doing something far worse.

if they are going to force him out it has to be today or tomorrow. after that it is supposedly too late to take him off the ballot.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Let me Highlight something for you.

I shit you not...


What are the chances of Akin being kicked out of the race? What makes people make thoroughly ignorant comments like that?
Personally I'd say that he needs his party nomination removed. He should also perhaps spend some time at a rape crisis centre to learn first hand how traumatic rape is. However I suspect that he would probably do further harm if confronted with recent rape victims.

And your point?

[The Black Forrest]

For a party that needs to become more appealing to women, you'd think their candidates would be a little more careful.

But he is looking out for them.

We can end teenage pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and abortion by simply forcibly raping women.

[The Black Forrest]

Man, to think the Democrats recalled Wiener for showing his erection on the internet. The GOP better recall this guy for doing something far worse.

if they are going to force him out it has to be today or tomorrow. after that it is supposedly too late to take him off the ballot.

Indeed. I suspect we will hear "yea uhm....we wanted to recall him but it was too late."

[Des-Bal]

They took away my biology credits for reading that.

[The Black Forrest]

They took away my biology credits for reading that.

Ok that was funny.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

They took away my biology credits for reading that.

[Alien Space Bats]

It frustrates me as someone who leans Republican that my party is too tightly controlled by social conservatives, neoconservatives, and theists, when I identify mainly as just an economic conservative. I feel that I can't vote for the Democratic party because of their stances on economic issues, but the GOP doesn't care about classical liberals or right wing libertarians. I probably won't vote as often or just switch to Independent.

<sits Saiwania down an a booth in a quiet bar, orders a pitcher of beer and two chilled mugs>

I think its time we had a talk - former Republican to current one.

I call myself a liberal, but that's more... how did Dan Quayle once put it?... "A badge of honor", worn to piss the other side off more than anything else. In practical terms, I believe in capitalism, although I think of it in the same way Winston Churchill once spoke of democracy - as the worst political system in the world, save for all the others; that means that I'm generally willing to rely on business to do things business has historically done quite well, and I'm generally skeptical of arguments against letting private industry handle things - although I do recognize that free markets do have certain established prerequisites for perfect operation that, in practice, are never entirely met, which means that all free markets have glitches, and sometimes those glitches become problematic (the health care market being a really good example). I also recognize that there are needs that we as a society have can't be provided by the market, simply because there's no way to get the market to respond to those needs (see below).

Now, you're probably a little more conservative than I am when it comes to economic matters; you're probably more skeptical of government and a little more willing to trust markets to produce the "right" result. But more than that, I'm guessing that you believe that the American left has a secret (or not-so-secret) agenda to undermine free enterprise and transform the U.S. into a European-style welfare state (or worse), and that concern leads you to want to keep political power out of their hands.

The thing is, that fear is outmoded and - more importantly - is (or could be) held in check by political forces within the Democratic Party. The New Left - which did want to transform America into a social democracy (or even a genuine socialist state) - has been losing power and influence steadily since the early 1970's; since the end of the Cold War and the consolidation of the moderate-to-conservative wing of the Democratic Party as that Party's leadership (which more or less coincided with Clinton's victory over Bush the Elder in '92), it's been more or less on the outside when it comes to defining Democratic policy on an ongoing basis. Of late, the Party's left wing, seeking to regain political relevance, has recast itself as "progressives", and in doing so has tempered or even discarded many of its old distributionist ideals, along with any thought of pushing America away from a market-driven economy.

IOW, whether conservatives want to admit it or not, classical liberalism has won the ideological debate in America - which is why so many American socialists don't want to even be involved at all with the Democratic Party, which they see as a bunch of sell-outs. Today, the key debate in the realm of economics is between laissez-faire and a well-regulated economy - between a government that does nothing to soften the edges of free-market capitalism in favor of letting market forces run free and do whatever they may, versus a government that recognizes certain greater needs that cannot be met by the marketplace (such as universal education [so as to produce a well-education electorate with the critical skills needed for self-government], social and economic mobility [so as to foster mass loyalty to society and reduce internal tensions that might jeopardize political stability], the maintenance of certain strategic industries needed to further our national security as well as the avoidance of dependencies on foreign resources that could be interrupted in time of war, etc.).

This is the ironic truth behind one of my sig lines - the one in which Rachel Maddow essentially quips that these days, liberals agree with pretty much everything Eisenhower wanted to do. The political space that once belonged to liberal (or even moderate) Republicans now belongs to the Democratic Party, and it is in fact the space where most of the present Democratic Party leadership resides.

So if you're to the right of that space economically while generally siding with the Democratic Party on social issues, there really is no reason not to switch Parties at this point. Such a switch would make you a conservative "blue dog" Democratic - a faction that has a lot of say within Democratic politics. From that position, you'd be in a good position to continue to argue for limited government intervention in the economy and for preferring private sector solutions to various public policy problems (like wanting to see more charter schools as a vehicle for education reform).

In contrast, you're never going to get your old Party back, because your old Party now belongs to the John Birch Society and other similar nutjobs (or worse, given the way white supremacists have infiltrated groups like Tea Party Express, as well as Romney's foolish decision to implement a new Southern Strategy 2.0 aimed at building support for his campaign based on white resentment of growing minority influence in America). Unless you want to hang with the troglodytes and bite back your opinions when they blather on and on about how lazy black and brown people are living off the hard work of decent white folks, it's really time to switch Parties.

As a former Republican, trust me when I say you'll be glad you did. The embarrassment you'll experience from the occasional silly left-wing remark is nothing compared with constantly having to live with the likes of Michelle Bachmann, Steve King, Todd Aiken, Rick Santorum, Orly Taitz, and Donald Trump.

Do it for your peace of mind. Do it for your sanity.

Come on in - the water's warm, and we have a better cash bar.

---

When I say that there are certain things the market can't do for us, because the market can't recognize our need, I mean this: Society has certain needs that cannot be expressed in terms of financial incentives. Now, I'm always open to a libertarian counterargument: For example, even though they have since come to reject the idea, the Heritage Foundation did the world a tremendous service when they came up with the idea of cap-and-trade as a means of dealing with acid rain; in essence, they found a market solution for what had previously been viewed as a market problem, and that achievement was nothing short of brilliant (so much so that I think they should receive a Nobel prize of some kind for coming up with the idea). In general, though, we have many problems where these simply no way to price a preference - IOW, there's no way for us to signal that we'd prefer a partial market outcome over others.

Consider it a problem in cybernetics/information theory: If a particular system can only take inputs in a particular form, then out-of-band messages simply can't be conveyed to that system, however much we might wish them to be (and now you know why some of us talk about "the free market fairy").

National defense is a good example: Security needs are a consequence of nationalist sentiment, political ideology, geography, and demographics. Most of these factors cannot be recast in an informational form that allows for markets to consider them in arriving at equilibrium. Thus markets can make us rich, but they cannot make us safe. Absent some external intervention in the market, for example, there is no way to get the price of oil to reflect oil's military cost: The cost of maintaining the ability to defend oil-producing countries from attack by enemies who, were they to secure those fields for themselves, would deny them to us for non-economic reasons (i.e., in order to gain power over us or keep us from exercising power over them).

Universal education is another: There is no easy or obvious way for us to "price into the system" the benefits of having an informed electorate - or the costs of failing to maintain one. Free markets are oblivious to our preference for democracy over either monarchy or dictatorship, so long as all governments involved impose the exact same level of economic regulation on them. But we care which system we end up with - and are thus obliged to try and make sure that the prerequisites of our preferred system are met if at all possible.

This is what I mean when I speak - as I have in so many other threads - of the problem on non-pecuniary needs. Assuming the market will "take care of everything" implies that those things which cannot readily be recognized by the market and incorporated into its logic are irrelevant. Such an assumption is obvious false: What, after all, is the dollar value of freedom, or of safety from foreign enemies? Can those needs be priced into the market in such a way as to make the market account for them?

If so, that's fine - like carbon emissions or acid rain, we should go ahead and price them into the system. But if not, then we are left with no choice but to seek them outside of the marketplace - where we go for so many other other "little" things in life, such as love and romance, faith and understanding, enlightenment, and camaraderie.

[Xsyne]

Also, only read first and last pages, but Scott Brown came out hard against this buffoon and called for him to withdraw. Good on him. Good on everyone, regardless of party, who calls on him to withdraw.

Man, to think the Democrats recalled Wiener for showing his erection on the internet. The GOP better recall this guy for doing something far worse.

Weiner resigned, he wasn't recalled.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I can be certain that such a statement by the Republican representative was clearly trolling. Now, I wonder who would dish out a warning in real life for that.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

In contrast, you're never going to get your old Party back, because your old Party now belongs to the John Birch Society and other similar nutjobs (or worse, given the way white supremacists have infiltrated groups like Tea Party Express, as well as Romney's foolish decision to implement a new Southern Strategy 2.0 aimed at building support for his campaign based on white resentment of growing minority influence in America). Unless you want to hang with the troglodytes and bite back your opinions when they blather on and on about how lazy black and brown people are living off the hard work of decent white folks, it's really time to switch Parties.

I think its deeper than that...orgs like JBS are tools of the Kochs...they and their billionaire friends have co-opted the republican party through these fringe groups...

[The divided]

all credit to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/20/leading-social-conservatives-rally-to-akins-defense/

Two top officials from the Family Research Council said the Missouri congressman is the target of a Democratic smear campaign and chided those Republicans who have condemned Akin.

Connie Mackey, who heads the group's political action committee, said the group "strongly supports" Todd Akin.

"We feel this is a case of gotcha politics," Mackey told reporters in Tampa, where the Republican National Committee was gathering ahead of the party's convention next week. "He has been elected five times in that community in Missouri. They know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is. We've worked with him up on the hill. He's a defender of life."

"Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here," she added. "I don't know anything about the science or the legal implications of his statement. I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it."

lamo

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins fired back at Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, a leading moderate voice in the GOP who called Akin's remarks "outrageous" and encouraged him to drop his challenge to Democrat Claire McCaskill.

"He should be careful because based on some of his statements there may be some call for him to get out of his race," Perkins said of Brown. "He has been off the reservation on a number of Republican issues, conservative issues I should say. His support among conservatives is very shallow."

lol, he is from Massachusetts. Imagine how long someone who fit their definition of a "true conservative" would last there.

Perkins and Mackey, though, pulled their punches when asked about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has also denounced Akin.

"The Romney campaign as well as now Paul Ryan have made very clear where they stand in the issue of life," Perkins said. "We are not going to allow people to divide conservative voters in this process. We are going to keep our eye on the big picture."

Except when you don't. #fail

[Mail Jeevas]

Let me Highlight something for you.
[rest of post cut for space]

If you're highlighting, how about also highlight the part where he mentions the fact that the unemployment levels were higher under frmr Pres. Bush? Oh wait, he conveniently didn't mention that.

[Gauthier]

Dunno. McCaskill is a tough campaigner and a relatively conservative Democrat. With all the outside money that will come flowing in, the GOP will want to cut this off before it develops into something that will cost them a seat they would have won. They won't want to risk the seat staying Democratic when there is still time to make a real effort to fix this - starting with pressuring Akin out.

Uh huh, I'll believe it when I see it. Again, the dregs of Southern Illinois float west after all.

You're overestimating the defiant stupidity of people. If reality didn't matter to these people Mississippi of all places wouldn't have rejected the Egghood Amendment and we'd all be suffering under the Palin Administration right now.

[Poorisolation]

Should not perhaps even those who are staunch Democrats especially if they are also staunch democrats not worry along with those Republicans who are concerned that sanity in the GOP has seemingly imploded?

Given that US politics is structured around a two party system with things as they stand a sudden outbreak of intelligence by the US electorate might not be as entirely a good thing as might be hoped. Without a significant chance of facing electoral opposition it would be all too easy for the Democratic Party to become the home of grafters and rent seekers. With one party corrupt and one party mad what would then be left for America?

Not sure what anyone else's thought are on this but it worries me.

[Gauthier]

Should not perhaps even those who are staunch Democrats especially if they are also staunch democrats not worry along with those Republicans who are concerned that sanity in the GOP has seemingly imploded?

Given that US politics is structured around a two party system with things as they stand a sudden outbreak of intelligence by the US electorate might not be as entirely a good thing as might be hoped. Without a significant chance of facing electoral opposition it would be all too easy for the Democratic Party to become the home of grafters and rent seekers. With one party corrupt and one party mad what would then be left for America?

Not sure what anyone else's thought are on this but it worries me.

Start a thread on this instead of trying to threadjack.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

all credit to http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/20/leading-social-conservatives-rally-to-akins-defense/

Two top officials from the Family Research Council said the Missouri congressman is the target of a Democratic smear campaign and chided those Republicans who have condemned Akin.

Connie Mackey, who heads the group's political action committee, said the group "strongly supports" Todd Akin.

"We feel this is a case of gotcha politics," Mackey told reporters in Tampa, where the Republican National Committee was gathering ahead of the party's convention next week. "He has been elected five times in that community in Missouri. They know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is. We've worked with him up on the hill. He's a defender of life."

"Todd Akin is getting a really bad break here," she added. "I don't know anything about the science or the legal implications of his statement. I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it."

lamo

Family Research Council president Tony Perkins fired back at Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, a leading moderate voice in the GOP who called Akin's remarks "outrageous" and encouraged him to drop his challenge to Democrat Claire McCaskill.

"He should be careful because based on some of his statements there may be some call for him to get out of his race," Perkins said of Brown. "He has been off the reservation on a number of Republican issues, conservative issues I should say. His support among conservatives is very shallow."

lol, he is from Massachusetts. Imagine how long someone who fit their definition of a "true conservative" would last there.

Perkins and Mackey, though, pulled their punches when asked about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has also denounced Akin.

"The Romney campaign as well as now Paul Ryan have made very clear where they stand in the issue of life," Perkins said. "We are not going to allow people to divide conservative voters in this process. We are going to keep our eye on the big picture."

Except when you don't. #fail

I'd say it pretty obvious that the Family Research Council are a hate group. Why do these nutjobs get airtime? Well I know why but damn!

[Homosexy]

I laughed so hard when I saw this.

[Ostroeuropa]

Real Republicans Don't Get Elected

[Revolutopia]

I laughed so hard when I saw this.

What ever keeps one from crying, I guess.

[The Orion Spur]

Wait, he didn't pass biology but can run the country?

[Homosexy]

I laughed so hard when I saw this.

What ever keeps one from crying, I guess.

It was more in disbelief that these are the men running my country.
Fuckin Republicans. They crack me up.

[Shadowlandistan]

This idiot isn't fit for public office. At times I wish being a really, REALLY stupid conservative would be grounds for arrest haha.