Real Rape Victims Don't Get Pregnant

[Xeng He]

] Yes by reducing the avilability of abortions to victims of sexual assault to the narrow term of "forcible rape". Which in and of itself is a catch-22 because all rape is forceable anyway.

This isn't true. Statutatory can include things like sex while intoxicated or underage sex, neitherof which have to involve force.

[Alien Space Bats]

And, for a follow-up act, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa says that statutory rape and incest can't result in pregnancy, either.

King says he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's comment because he wasn't sure of the context of the remark. He did, however, say he supports Akin's character.

"Todd Akin is a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family," King said.

That's how Congressman King sees Todd Akin. But Akin's comment about rape had both Democrats and Republicans asking him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race on Monday.

Akin told a reporter that pregnancies from rape are "really rare" and suggested rape victims are less likely to get pregnant.

King says, instead of focusing on one phrase, and turning it into a national issue, voters should focus on the big picture.

"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for and in this case, I'm seeing the same thing, petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy," he said.

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

It's just like I said: Among Republicans, ideology is now the sole source of truth; actual real-world evidence is irrelevant or just plain wrong, and can safely be ignored if it doesn't fit your world view.

So if you want to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's possible death due to complications, all you have to do is simply claim that these exceptions are unnecessary because they never happen.

<pause>

So which brave Republican politican will step forward and complete the trifecta, telling us that pregnancy is perfectly safe and never, ever, ever EVER threatens a pregnant woman's life?

[Northern Dominus]

And, for a follow-up act, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa says that statutory rape and incest can't result in pregnancy, either.

King says he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's comment because he wasn't sure of the context of the remark. He did, however, say he supports Akin's character.

"Todd Akin is a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family," King said.

That's how Congressman King sees Todd Akin. But Akin's comment about rape had both Democrats and Republicans asking him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race on Monday.

Akin told a reporter that pregnancies from rape are "really rare" and suggested rape victims are less likely to get pregnant.

King says, instead of focusing on one phrase, and turning it into a national issue, voters should focus on the big picture.

"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for and in this case, I'm seeing the same thing, petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy," he said.

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

It's just like I said: Among Republicans, ideology is now the sole source of truth; actual real-world evidence is irrelevant or just plain wrong, and can safely be ignored if it doesn't fit your world view.

So if you want to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's possible death due to complications, all you have to do is simply claim that these exceptions are unnecessary because they never happen.

<pause>

So which brave Republican politican will step forward and complete the trifecta, telling us that pregnancy is perfectly safe and never, ever, ever EVER threatens a pregnant woman's life?

Jebus H Christo where in the blue hell do they GET these doddering idiots?! How many old and undereducated people do they gyp into voting for them?!

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

And, for a follow-up act, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa says that statutory rape and incest can't result in pregnancy, either.

King says he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's comment because he wasn't sure of the context of the remark. He did, however, say he supports Akin's character.

"Todd Akin is a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family," King said.

That's how Congressman King sees Todd Akin. But Akin's comment about rape had both Democrats and Republicans asking him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race on Monday.

Akin told a reporter that pregnancies from rape are "really rare" and suggested rape victims are less likely to get pregnant.

King says, instead of focusing on one phrase, and turning it into a national issue, voters should focus on the big picture.

"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for and in this case, I'm seeing the same thing, petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy," he said.

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

It's just like I said: Among Republicans, ideology is now the sole source of truth; actual real-world evidence is irrelevant or just plain wrong, and can safely be ignored if it doesn't fit your world view.

So if you want to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's possible death due to complications, all you have to do is simply claim that these exceptions are unnecessary because they never happen.

<pause>

So which brave Republican politican will step forward and complete the trifecta, telling us that pregnancy is perfectly safe and never, ever, ever EVER threatens a pregnant woman's life?

Unfuckingbelievable.

[Gauthier]

And, for a follow-up act, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa says that statutory rape and incest can't result in pregnancy, either.

King says he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's comment because he wasn't sure of the context of the remark. He did, however, say he supports Akin's character.

"Todd Akin is a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family," King said.

That's how Congressman King sees Todd Akin. But Akin's comment about rape had both Democrats and Republicans asking him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race on Monday.

Akin told a reporter that pregnancies from rape are "really rare" and suggested rape victims are less likely to get pregnant.

King says, instead of focusing on one phrase, and turning it into a national issue, voters should focus on the big picture.

"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for and in this case, I'm seeing the same thing, petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy," he said.

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

It's just like I said: Among Republicans, ideology is now the sole source of truth; actual real-world evidence is irrelevant or just plain wrong, and can safely be ignored if it doesn't fit your world view.

So if you want to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's possible death due to complications, all you have to do is simply claim that these exceptions are unnecessary because they never happen.

<pause>

So which brave Republican politican will step forward and complete the trifecta, telling us that pregnancy is perfectly safe and never, ever, ever EVER threatens a pregnant woman's life?

Unfuckingbelievable.

I'm surprised the Republicans don't straight out say babies come from flying storks.

[Avenio]

And, for a follow-up act, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa says that statutory rape and incest can't result in pregnancy, either.

King says he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's comment because he wasn't sure of the context of the remark. He did, however, say he supports Akin's character.

"Todd Akin is a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family," King said.

That's how Congressman King sees Todd Akin. But Akin's comment about rape had both Democrats and Republicans asking him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race on Monday.

Akin told a reporter that pregnancies from rape are "really rare" and suggested rape victims are less likely to get pregnant.

King says, instead of focusing on one phrase, and turning it into a national issue, voters should focus on the big picture.

"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for and in this case, I'm seeing the same thing, petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy," he said.

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

It's just like I said: Among Republicans, ideology is now the sole source of truth; actual real-world evidence is irrelevant or just plain wrong, and can safely be ignored if it doesn't fit your world view.

So if you want to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's possible death due to complications, all you have to do is simply claim that these exceptions are unnecessary because they never happen.

<pause>

So which brave Republican politican will step forward and complete the trifecta, telling us that pregnancy is perfectly safe and never, ever, ever EVER threatens a pregnant woman's life?

Unfuckingbelievable.

Utterly bizarre. It's like they're lining up to see who can shoot themselves in the foot the most thoroughly - how in god's name are their PR teams letting them say this sort of thing?! I mean, unless they've filled their staff with sycophants and zealots, surely someone would have spoken up and pointed out that maybe going out of their way to wade into a controversy like this perhaps wasn't a good idea?

[Gauthier]

Unfuckingbelievable.

Utterly bizarre. It's like they're lining up to see who can shoot themselves in the foot the most thoroughly - how in god's name are their PR teams letting them say this sort of thing?! I mean, unless they've filled their staff with sycophants and zealots, surely someone would have spoken up and pointed out that maybe going out of their way to wade into a controversy like this perhaps wasn't a good idea?

It's a pervasive fear of the Teahadists in the GOP.

[The Black Forrest]

And, for a follow-up act, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa says that statutory rape and incest can't result in pregnancy, either.

King says he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's comment because he wasn't sure of the context of the remark. He did, however, say he supports Akin's character.

"Todd Akin is a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family," King said.

That's how Congressman King sees Todd Akin. But Akin's comment about rape had both Democrats and Republicans asking him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race on Monday.

Akin told a reporter that pregnancies from rape are "really rare" and suggested rape victims are less likely to get pregnant.

King says, instead of focusing on one phrase, and turning it into a national issue, voters should focus on the big picture.

"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for and in this case, I'm seeing the same thing, petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy," he said.

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

It's just like I said: Among Republicans, ideology is now the sole source of truth; actual real-world evidence is irrelevant or just plain wrong, and can safely be ignored if it doesn't fit your world view.

So if you want to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's possible death due to complications, all you have to do is simply claim that these exceptions are unnecessary because they never happen.

<pause>

So which brave Republican politican will step forward and complete the trifecta, telling us that pregnancy is perfectly safe and never, ever, ever EVER threatens a pregnant woman's life?

infuckingcredible. And people wonder why I have a low opinion of Christians.

I do like:

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter,"

So basically; the claims can't be true because I haven't seen it!

-edit-

Now I remember this dumbass.

Founding member of the teabaerr tea party. Said the terrorists would be dancing in the streets if Obama won. Said congress was to blame the suicide plane crash into the IRS building because they didn't listen to him about abolishing the IRS. And of course the claim ol' tail gunner joe was a great american hero.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Unfuckingbelievable.

I'm surprised the Republicans don't straight out say babies come from flying storks.

I fully expect that by the end of this week.

Unfuckingbelievable.

Utterly bizarre. It's like they're lining up to see who can shoot themselves in the foot the most thoroughly - how in god's name are their PR teams letting them say this sort of thing?! I mean, unless they've filled their staff with sycophants and zealots, surely someone would have spoken up and pointed out that maybe going out of their way to wade into a controversy like this perhaps wasn't a good idea?

No...actually it makes complete sense...look at their mind set. They know that the peanut gallery are now the Republican party and that any comments, however insane, will go down well with these people. Romney & co will get given some slack as they are playing federal politics. Any objections from anyone not on the right will be laughed off as being typical anti-American liberals. When Obama wins the election the Republican party will go into ultra frenzy and we will see more insanity from the red states (Wisconsin? pah...minor league stuff). On a national level the Republicans will go full on batshit insane Christofacism...hell business is already a corporatists play ground. What people need to be looking at is how to defeat these people in 2016...because by then their hand will be stronger than it is now. Effectively Romney is being thrown under the bus in preparation 2016.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I do like:

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter,"

So basically; the claims can't be true because I haven't seen it!

And you know how any discussion would go right? Fucking nowhere...they are pathologically incapable of admitting that they are wrong in any way because they will invoke the Jesus card.

[Gauthier]

I do like:

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter,"

So basically; the claims can't be true because I haven't seen it!

And you know how any discussion would go right? Fucking nowhere...they are pathologically incapable of admitting that they are wrong in any way because they will invoke the Jesus card.

It's times like these I wish Jesus would pop up and bitchslap them.

[Vareiln]

And you know how any discussion would go right? Fucking nowhere...they are pathologically incapable of admitting that they are wrong in any way because they will invoke the Jesus card.

It's times like these I wish Jesus would pop up and bitchslap them.

You ever think he gets tired of having his name invoked to justify just about anything?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

And you know how any discussion would go right? Fucking nowhere...they are pathologically incapable of admitting that they are wrong in any way because they will invoke the Jesus card.

It's times like these I wish Jesus would pop up and bitchslap them.

Right...

Oi! God! I'm an atheist and I know you don't exist. Prove me wrong if you are there and do as Gauthier suggests and bitchslap these fuck turds who have no respect for your message of peace and love. You do that and and I'll happily be a follower of your teachings.

And don't give me that "God works in mysterious ways" bollocks either...you fucking not only set light to a bush to make a point you also used The Voice. So hop to it sunshine. I'm impatient and also quietly scared shitless that the nutcases are going to really, in the end, blow us all to shit in some kind of schizophrenic based rapture involving nukes. Also the corporatism.

Deal?

[Fluffy Coyotes]

] Yes by reducing the avilability of abortions to victims of sexual assault to the narrow term of "forcible rape". Which in and of itself is a catch-22 because all rape is forceable anyway.

This isn't true. Statutatory can include things like sex while intoxicated or underage sex, neitherof which have to involve force.

IMO it's a false equivalence to call those things rape, though, because being drunk or young past a solid line society draws is not inherently equivalent to not being willing.

[Alien Space Bats]

I'm surprised the Republicans don't straight out say babies come from flying storks.

I fully expect that by the end of this week.

WTF are you smoking?!? There is no fucking way the GOP is going to imply that good, God-fearing NRA members exercising their Constitutional right to bag waterfowl might be engaged in the heinous crime of baby-murder!

[The Reasonable]

And, for a follow-up act, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa says that statutory rape and incest can't result in pregnancy, either.

King says he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's comment because he wasn't sure of the context of the remark. He did, however, say he supports Akin's character.

"Todd Akin is a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family," King said.

That's how Congressman King sees Todd Akin. But Akin's comment about rape had both Democrats and Republicans asking him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race on Monday.

Akin told a reporter that pregnancies from rape are "really rare" and suggested rape victims are less likely to get pregnant.

King says, instead of focusing on one phrase, and turning it into a national issue, voters should focus on the big picture.

"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for and in this case, I'm seeing the same thing, petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy," he said.

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

It's just like I said: Among Republicans, ideology is now the sole source of truth; actual real-world evidence is irrelevant or just plain wrong, and can safely be ignored if it doesn't fit your world view.

So if you want to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's possible death due to complications, all you have to do is simply claim that these exceptions are unnecessary because they never happen.

<pause>

So which brave Republican politican will step forward and complete the trifecta, telling us that pregnancy is perfectly safe and never, ever, ever EVER threatens a pregnant woman's life?

I was conservative/libertarian only a few years ago and even then neither I, nor the GOP, would have stood for that...it's a shame what the Teabaggers have done to the Republicans. What happened to people like Lincoln, who despite fighting a war with his own countrymen, wanted the South to be reunited and reconstructed quickly? What happened to people like Teddy Roosevelt, who enforced anti-trust legislation, cared about the environment to preserve forests, and created the FDA which prevents us from eating poisoned food and medicine? What happened to people like Eisenhower who, despite being a Republican, kept the New Deal intact and enforced civil rights court rulings?

And the Democrats nowadays are so cowed by the GOP extremists that they don't fight that hard for fair legislation themselves. What happened to people like FDR, who stabilized the US economy in the Depression? Truman, who argued for a "Fair Deal", an extension of the New Deal and wasn't afraid to fight with the do-nothing GOP of the late 40s? LBJ, who despite his failures with the Great Society, saw civil rights legislation pass and actually cared about them?

It's no wonder I hate US politics with a passion now- you have pussies on one end and crazies on the other. No democracy can function properly when the people have no viable options to choose from. Europe, despite its problems with debt, excess of welfare in some places (like Greece before the crash), excess of regulation of anything "dangerous", and sometimes excessive human rights to those that don't necessarily deserve them, has better politics than the US and doesn't have many politicians that are even remotely idiotic as the Tea Party today. I feel ashamed and guilty that I ever agreed with even just their economic platform...

[Farnhamia]

And, for a follow-up act, Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa says that statutory rape and incest can't result in pregnancy, either.

King says he didn't want to give his thoughts on Akin's comment because he wasn't sure of the context of the remark. He did, however, say he supports Akin's character.

"Todd Akin is a strong Christian man, with a wonderful family," King said.

That's how Congressman King sees Todd Akin. But Akin's comment about rape had both Democrats and Republicans asking him to drop out of the Missouri Senate race on Monday.

Akin told a reporter that pregnancies from rape are "really rare" and suggested rape victims are less likely to get pregnant.

King says, instead of focusing on one phrase, and turning it into a national issue, voters should focus on the big picture.

"I think this election should be about, how did Todd Akin vote and what did he vote for and what did he stand for and in this case, I'm seeing the same thing, petty personal attacks substituting for strong policy," he said.

King supports the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act." It would ban Federal funding of abortions except in cases of forcible rape. Right now, Medicaid also covers abortions for victims of statutory rape or incest - for example, a 12 year old who gets pregnant.

Congressman King says he's not aware of any young victims like that.

"Well I just haven't heard of that being a circumstance that's been brought to me in any personal way, and I'd be open to discussion about that subject matter," he said.

It's just like I said: Among Republicans, ideology is now the sole source of truth; actual real-world evidence is irrelevant or just plain wrong, and can safely be ignored if it doesn't fit your world view.

So if you want to ban abortion without exceptions for rape, incest, or a mother's possible death due to complications, all you have to do is simply claim that these exceptions are unnecessary because they never happen.

<pause>

So which brave Republican politican will step forward and complete the trifecta, telling us that pregnancy is perfectly safe and never, ever, ever EVER threatens a pregnant woman's life?

I was conservative/libertarian only a few years ago and even then I, nor the GOP, would have stood for that...it's a shame what the Teabaggers have done to the Republicans. What happened to people like Lincoln, who despite fighting a war with his own countrymen, wanted the South to be reunited and reconstructed quickly? What happened to people like Teddy Roosevelt, who enforced anti-trust legislation, cared about the environment to preserve forests, and created the FDA which prevents us from eating poisoned food and medicine? What happened to people like Eisenhower who, despite being a Republican, kept the New Deal intact and enforced civil rights court rulings?

And the Democrats nowadays are so cowed by the GOP extremists that they don't fight that hard for fair legislation themselves. What happened to people like FDR, who stabilized the US economy in the Depression? Truman, who argued for a "Fair Deal", an extension of the New Deal and wasn't afraid to fight with the do-nothing GOP of the late 40s? LBJ, who despite his failures with the Great Society, saw civil rights legislation pass and actually cared about them?

It's no wonder I hate US politics with a passion now- you have pussies on one end and crazies on the other. No democracy can function properly when the people have no viable options to choose from. Europe, despite its problems with debt, excess of welfare in some places (like Greece before the crash), excess of regulation of anything "dangerous", and sometimes excessive human rights to those that don't necessarily deserve them, has better politics than the US and doesn't have many politicians that are even remotely idiotic as the Tea Party today.

Lincoln was assassinated by an advocate of "states' rights." Teddy Roosevelt would have been primaried by a Tea Party candidate. LBJ would be labeled a socialist at best, a communist at worst.

[Norstal]

It's no wonder I hate US politics with a passion now- you have pussies on one end and crazies on the other. No democracy can function properly when the people have no viable options to choose from. Europe, despite its problems with debt, excess of welfare in some places (like Greece before the crash), excess of regulation of anything "dangerous", and sometimes excessive human rights to those that don't necessarily deserve them, has better politics than the US and doesn't have many politicians that are even remotely idiotic as the Tea Party today. I feel ashamed and guilty that I ever agreed with even just their economic platform...

The Democrats stopped being pussies. See: Harry Reid and his accusations on Romney. I don't want to threadjack, but the idea that the Democrats are cowards is steadily being false with every single passing day.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

I fully expect that by the end of this week.

WTF are you smoking?!? There is no fucking way the GOP is going to imply that good, God-fearing NRA members exercising their Constitutional right to bag waterfowl might be engaged in the heinous crime of baby-murder!

Well played!

[Maurepas]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ ... ppactionfb
Not only does he say the same stupid things Akin said, he goes on to state his opinion that:

I think it’s immoral for us to compel conscientious objecting taxpayers to fund abortion through the federal government, or any other government for that matter. So that’s my stand. And if there are exceptions there, then bring me those exceptions let’s talk about it. In the meantime it’s wrong for us to compel pro-life people to pay taxes to fund abortion.

Only if you agree it's wrong for us to compel anti-war people to pay taxes to fund a war, Mr. King. And somehow I doubt you'd be as happy to allow that sort of exemption.

[Poorisolation]

I was conservative/libertarian only a few years ago and even then I, nor the GOP, would have stood for that...it's a shame what the Teabaggers have done to the Republicans. What happened to people like Lincoln, who despite fighting a war with his own countrymen, wanted the South to be reunited and reconstructed quickly? What happened to people like Teddy Roosevelt, who enforced anti-trust legislation, cared about the environment to preserve forests, and created the FDA which prevents us from eating poisoned food and medicine? What happened to people like Eisenhower who, despite being a Republican, kept the New Deal intact and enforced civil rights court rulings?

And the Democrats nowadays are so cowed by the GOP extremists that they don't fight that hard for fair legislation themselves. What happened to people like FDR, who stabilized the US economy in the Depression? Truman, who argued for a "Fair Deal", an extension of the New Deal and wasn't afraid to fight with the do-nothing GOP of the late 40s? LBJ, who despite his failures with the Great Society, saw civil rights legislation pass and actually cared about them?

It's no wonder I hate US politics with a passion now- you have pussies on one end and crazies on the other. No democracy can function properly when the people have no viable options to choose from. Europe, despite its problems with debt, excess of welfare in some places (like Greece before the crash), excess of regulation of anything "dangerous", and sometimes excessive human rights to those that don't necessarily deserve them, has better politics than the US and doesn't have many politicians that are even remotely idiotic as the Tea Party today.

Lincoln was assassinated by an advocate of "states' rights." Teddy Roosevelt would have been primaried by a Tea Party candidate. LBJ would be labeled a socialist at best, a communist at worst.

Or to put it another way the past always looks rosier. Teddy was primaried by the Republican Party of the day, A group of Republicans would solemnly tell Churchill that Roosevelt was a dictator "more dangerous than Hitler".

Democracy is a battle folks, fought at the ballot box and not with guns mind but still requiring you to make the effort to step up and do what is needed....in this case vote with your brain and not out of any sense of tribal loyalty.

edit note: can't spell

[Laerod]

It's no wonder I hate US politics with a passion now- you have pussies on one end and crazies on the other. No democracy can function properly when the people have no viable options to choose from. Europe, despite its problems with debt, excess of welfare in some places (like Greece before the crash), excess of regulation of anything "dangerous", and sometimes excessive human rights to those that don't necessarily deserve them, has better politics than the US and doesn't have many politicians that are even remotely idiotic as the Tea Party today. I feel ashamed and guilty that I ever agreed with even just their economic platform...

The Democrats stopped being pussies. See: Harry Reid and his accusations on Romney. I don't want to threadjack, but the idea that the Democrats are cowards is steadily being false with every single passing day.

To be quite fair, Harry Reid is a rather unique personality shaped by the fact that he had to punch his way out of a trailer park and into the Senate. Quite literally, since he was an amateur boxer.

[Poorisolation]

CNN piece on Dr Wilkes

Dr John C Wilke would be the doctor who is confused about the differences in Human and Duck reproductive or should that be reproducktive, biology, anyway if you feel up to it watch the video, not deep but deeper than Akin.

[The Archregimancy]

Serrland's mentioned this, but it doesn't seem to have been picked up.

But I would like to console our American friends with the news that idiocy about rape on the part of male politicians is not limited to US politicians, nor is the ideological basis for denying the nature of alleged rape necessarily always (I regret to say) limited to US conservatives.

Step forward Bradford West MP George Galloway!

In a thirty minute podcast, the controversial anti-war MP said it was "an extraordinary coincidence that public enemy number one, Julian Assange, somehow gets inveigled with two women with incredibly complex political backgrounds who just, at the right time, come forward with allegations of sexual misconduct against him".

"Let me tell you, I think that Julian Assange's personal sexual behaviour is sordid, disgusting, and I condemn it," he said.

"But even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape.

"At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this."

The Bradford West MP suggested one of the women had claimed she invited Mr Assange back to her flat, had consensual sex with him and then "woke up to him having sex with her again - something which can happen, you know".

On the issue of whether this would constitute rape or not, Mr Galloway suggested that "not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion".

"Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them.

"It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?'

"It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning."

Rape Crisis said the MP's understanding of what constituted rape appeared to be "factually incorrect" and that if the woman concerned was asleep when the sexual encounter began, consent could not "reasonably" have been given.

"Having had consensual sex with a woman once does not give a man licence to then have sex with her again at any time and in any way he pleases and assume consent is given," a spokeswoman said.

"By the same token, having had consensual sex with someone once does not mean a woman has forever forfeited her right to withdraw or refuse her consent to further sex with that person.

"Sex without consent is rape. Mr Galloway's description of such sexual violence as 'really bad manners' is offensive and deeply concerning." Mr Galloway was not available for comment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19323783

Original podcast (skip the first 3 minutes to get to the actual podcast): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5B4I5F05jNg

George Galloway has refused to retract his comments that the sexual offences allegedly committed by Julian Assange amounted to no more than bad "sexual etiquette" – despite the leader of his own party condemning them as "deeply disappointing and wrong".

When the Respect MP issued a statement yesterday afternoon, it was expected that he would use the opportunity to clarify his controversial claims about the WikiLeaks founder. But instead of addressing them directly, he insisted that Mr Assange was the target of a "set up" by the US, British and Swedish governments.

"No never means yes and non-consensual sex is rape. Julian Assange, let's be clear, has always denied the allegations. And this has all the hallmarks of a set-up," the statement read. Suggesting the US and UK authorities should promise not to organise the onward extradition of Mr Assange while he was in Sweden, he added: "What is preventing the two governments doing this? I think we know."

Mr Assange faces the prospect of being charged with four separate offences in Sweden. In his initial extradition hearing, the Magistrate asserted that the first three allegations would – if proven – constitute offences under the British Sexual Offences Act; and that the fourth would constitute rape.

However, Mr Galloway insisted: "What occurred is not rape as most people understand it. And it's important to note that the two women involved did not initially claim it."

Salma Yaqoob, the leader of the Respect party, said the MP's original comments had been "deeply disappointing and wrong".

In a posting on her own website, she said the "political issues" surrounding Mr Assange's case should not be used to diminish the seriousness of the accusations against him. "Let me be clear, as a politician and as a woman. Rape occurs when a woman has not consented to sex," she added.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 70051.html


I suppose one might make the case that there's a difference between arguing over the legal, technical, and moral definition of rape for ideological reasons (as done by Galloway), as opposed to denying basic facts of biology for ideological reasons (as done by Akin). One could potentially argue that the first is simply morally misguided as opposed to jaw-droppingly ignorant in defiance of all available scientific proof.

But all the same, it would seem that - rather discouragingly - ideological blindness over rape is not entirely limited to US Republicans.

Oh yes, I can't let this go without mentioning the irony of Galloway representing the 'Respect' Party; which is currently led by a (now more than slightly irritated with her sole MP) Muslim woman, Salma Yaqoob.

[EnragedMaldivians]

It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'do you mind if I do it again?'

Wow, so according to Galloway, inserting your penis into an unconscious woman isn't really "rape" it's just "rude".

Always hated the man but this is a new low for him.