Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected.
Unless they're sock puppets for the nefarious power brokers... It was easier, however, before the internet.
They just act legitimately stupid?
Emphasis on the 'rarely', I think. But y'know....it only takes one or two to right royally fuck up the landscape.
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." - recently flown stupid flag
I do know smart people who put their brain through a lot of hoops to match their belief system. It isn't out of the question that politicians have to put their brains through a lot of hoops to meet their constituents dumbass beliefs.
Politicians who are legitimately brilliant also rarely get elected.
2000, dude, how was it even close???
I don't think it's rare at all. I knew foot was alluding to this gem of a statement, but couldn't figure out any intricate cut and pasting from my phone. Again, I don't think this kind of thinking is an exception to the rule; for many it is the be-all end-all rule. And it scares the bejeebus out of me:
"First of all, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare," Akin said of rape-induced pregnancy in an interview with KTVI. A clip of the interview was posted online by the liberal super PAC American Bridge.
"If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down," Akin continued. He did not provide an explanation for what constituted "legitimate rape."
He added: "But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. You know I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child."
Akin, a six-term U.S. congressman, touted his socially conservative values on the primary campaign trail, and gained the support of 2008 presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. He was one of the first members of Congress to join the Tea Party Caucus in 2010 and has easily won re-election in recent years.
The lawmaker raised a notable $2.2 million this cycle, as of July 18.
Akin - who sits on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee - has long held a hard-line stance on abortion. He is opposed to abortions in all circumstances, and has said he also opposes the morning after pill, which he equates to abortion.
Later, his handlers had him issue an "well I didn't mean it like THAT" statement, because he really does empathize with women who are victims of rape and abuse. Legitimate rape and legitimate abuse, whatever that is.
There are no words, except: stop the planet, I want to get off.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/19/missouri-republican-claims-legitimate-rape-rarely-results-in-pregnancy/?hpt=hp_t1Hey, if it takes a spammer to reply to absolutely anything I say...I'll take it!
Did the spammer express outrage (or even thinly veiled disdain?) on behalf of women everywhere?
Hard to say. The spammer's post started off like this, and went on for several hundred similar words.
Opisu najprostszych sposobow smazenia i brykiety z glosami....
Well heck, that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me. ;)
In my interpretation, of course.
I also read the story about Akin's remarks with disbelief and horror. TWIL and I talked about it extensively yesterday. We disagreed about some parts and agreed about some parts. Both of us agree that Akin is a dumbass and that his remark is legitimately stupid. We disagree about whether or not Akin actually believes what he said the first time, "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down". I contend that he doesn't really believe it and that it was just stupid pandering. I just find it hard to believe despite their alluring mystery, believing this statement indicates a lack of understanding about where babies come from that every ten year old I've ever met already knows. TWIL on the other hand thinks that it he's just stupid. Hard to say. I think it is clear that he's pandering--"look how hardcore I am--no abortion, no way, no how". And, though it saddens me, I think many of the people he directs such a message to may well believe his statement.
His follow up remarks, and I paraphrase: "I misspoke. Rape victims are understandably emotional, and while I have great sympathy for them I don't believe that harsh punishment is fair to the innocent child".
Misspoke? Yes, yes he did. He mistakenly spoke his thoughts when the right thing to do would have been to keep his mouth shut in range of a hot mike. I believe he believes this is the right way to think and act. Just look at his "clarification". He says he misspoke, right. But then he quickly switches to how emotional these women are and that the bad guys (assuming the rape was, you know, legitimate) should be punished but not the baby. Think of the children! No retraction, no "wow, that came out wrong, let me set the record straight", nothing like that. This is his position. It just...smacks of victim blaming to me, like he thinks there's no risk for the woman.
When I read through Google News' front page, I see news items from everywhere (well, it seems like everywhere, but how would I know?). Fox News is a very prominent name in lots of the world news and US news and political news sections, etc. In reading about this story, they were very conspicuously absent from the top thirty or forty providers of this story. I went to FoxNews.com and looked for the article. I *did* find it, but it's pretty well buried. Not something Fox's editorial and journalistic standards for important news. Unsurprising.
[ATTACH]40119[/ATTACH]
Maybe he does really believe that's possible. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing paving the way for all sorts of strange beliefs to develop. He knows abortion is bad. He knows rape is bad. He knows that people cite rape as the most legitimate reason for abortion. So he needs to use the word legitimate and he needs to address the what if a pregnancy results from rape. Easiest option is Denial. Pretend that it doesn't. We all know humans are naturally wired for Denial. it's a great self-defence mechanism. Deny the problem exists, deny abortion is the only solution.
The stupidity perhaps lies in the not questioning/checking the soundnes of his beliefs once in a while. But so few people do that, and they can't all be stupid. Can they?
Or maybe he doesn't believe it and it's just a political maneuver. Well that's stupid too because the obvious answer would have been to get all religious about it. He's not sucking up to the people who support abortion in case of rape, he's sucking up to the extreme pro-lifers, so why not just go the religous route? works for the creationists.
But then, I think a lot of people are pretty stupid and it generally causes trouble for me when I say so, especially if I don't "know them in real life" So I now tend to just keep it shut and stay away from them, because I have a low tolerance for stupid. I may even have a stupid allergy.
So he is saying, if a man and a woman really love each other... it isn't legitimate rape. Where does the stork figure in?
Also a neat little assumption here is that women's work is having babies, so it doesn't really matter whose babies.
I think the use of the word "legitimate" may be kind of smart just as long as he doesn't let himself get tricked into defining "legitimate rape", which he's successfully done so far.
Unspeakably immoral IMO, but maybe not stupid. Remember, some geniuses are evil.....
I'm finding it really hard to stay away from religion here, which will undoubtedly cause me to offend just about every body, so i think I'd better stop.
I think what this guy says does and believes is despicable, i was just rising to the challenge of the thread. And now I remember why i stay away from the politics forum.
I'm finding it really hard to stay away from religion here, which will undoubtedly cause me to offend just about every body, so i think I'd better stop.
[my teenage]Do it! You won't.[/daughters]
I do know smart people who put their brain through a lot of hoops to match their belief system.
Over 50% of us routinely do that. Ideological concepts are automatically converted into truth. Then seek soundbytes to support those myths. Many European dwellars still have no grasp of how strongly Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc do this brainwashing with extreme popularity.
Most ideology comes from "it was the first thing we were told". Most will hear something. And not say, "He provided no facts or number; so he is probably lying." That is always required to perform intelligent thought.
Those ‘always required’ underlying facts are necessary to not be an extremist. To not automatically believe what was told. How many drink Gatorade or Powerade because advertising (and no facts) says so? How many foolishly buy Red Bull at $2.50 a can. How many now buy Danon Yogurt because a miracle ingredient - digitalis rectalitis - creates better digestion. When science says no such proof exists. To know means always demanding the underlying facts and numbers. Most of us never do. Therefore have no idea how easily we are brainwashed.
How can that be? Only others are brainwashed? Therefore brainwashing works so easilyl. Those most manipulated by myths and lies will also deny the resulting brainwashing.
We have a benchmark for identifying those most easily brainwashed. Facts and numbers said no proof exists for Saddam's WMDs. How many were taken in by outright lies when even numbers said otherwise? It demonstrates how many can be easily brainwashed. That (and not some result of torture) is brainwashing.
Why did an overwhelming majority in Delaware vote against the once popular (9 time Congressman and Delaware Governor) Michael Castle to instead nominate the witch Christine O'Donnell? She went on Fox News as a wacko extremist spokesperson for Tea Party philosophies. Then was suddenly popular. She preached an ideology - was not a moderate. She demonstrated no intelligence nor educated grasp of facts. Did not even know major benchmarks in American history. Did not even know many fundamental concepts of the US Constitution.
Her extremist ideology alone was sufficient for so many in Delaware to make a decision. She did not waste time learning facts or history. Her philosophy was sufficient. Many choose her ideology (an emotion) rather than think logically. They entertained their emotions rather than intelligence. Brainwashing is that widespread.
You would think those so many in Delaware learned how easily they were manipulated. Nope. It requires a part of the brain that does not develop in many until after the age of 16. Many still never develop or learn how to use that part. Do not learn from their mistakes. Remain a target of extremist concepts promoted by soundbytes and the resulting brainwashing.
Study 1930 European history to appreciate how routinely and effectively it can be performed. Most people cannot separate their emotions from fact.
See, that's exactly what I want to know. What does he call a 'legitimate rape'? Since when did rapes come in degrees of legitimacy? Like.. is it an illegitimate rape if he gets it in but doesn't/can't leave anything behind? Is it only legitimate if the person reports it and not if she (or he for that matter) is too ashamed/traumatized/terrorized to say anything? Is it only legitimate if it's the man raping the woman?
Also, I want him and the doctors he spoke with to cite sources as to this wonderful defense mechanism my body has that only he and those doctors know about that can prevent pregnancy. If we human women can autonomously delay pregnancy like the striped desert mouse, I would love to know more about it. For reasons.
Well Monster, I will go there for you. Religion FOSTERS stupid. And for a very good reason...control. And it works really well.
Thats why I, too, try to stay away from that kind of stupid...its maddening to be around.
See, that's exactly what I want to know. What does he call a 'legitimate rape'? Since when did rapes come in degrees of legitimacy? Like.. is it an illegitimate rape if he gets it in but doesn't/can't leave anything behind? Is it only legitimate if the person reports it and not if she (or he for that matter) is too ashamed/traumatized/terrorized to say anything? Is it only legitimate if it's the man raping the woman?
Also, I want him and the doctors he spoke with to cite sources as to this wonderful defense mechanism my body has that only he and those doctors know about that can prevent pregnancy. If we human women can autonomously delay pregnancy like the striped desert mouse, I would love to know more about it. For reasons.
Answer from not necessarily a news
source.Legitimate means as defined by law. So he doesn't need to define it, the law does. He may wish to change the law..... but seeing as he wishes to outlaw abortion, that's moot too.
Almost citing sources for this scientific phenomenon was probably the stupidest thing he did. Should have said it was in the bible.
[COLOR="PaleTurquoise"]shut up, monster, shut up..............[/COLOR]
So, if you are raped and do get pregnant, you must have actually wanted it so therefore it wasn't really rape, because REAL rapes never result in pregnancy? That's what Akin thinks?
This guy gets to stay in office? Jebus fricking Crepes.
Why are women letting these assholes take us back in time? Every right we had to fight for, all the crap we still have to fight for, and someone can just say this nasty crap and we all nod and go about our business?
For the sakes of your mothers, your daughters, your aunts, your sisters, can't some of you get together and beat the snot out of the pasty little fuck face? And fuck him in the ass while you're at it. It will be a legitimate rape because he won't get pregnant.
The idea that rape victims cannot get pregnant has long roots. The legal position that pregnancy disproved a claim of rape appears to have been instituted in the UK sometime in the 13th century. One of the earliest British legal texts, Fleta, has a clause in the first book of the second volume stating that:
"If, however, the woman should have conceived at the time alleged in the appeal, it abates, for without a woman's consent she could not conceive."
But is Akin legitimately stupid or just plain evil? Now, the women who voted for him, we can probably take a reasonable stab that they are just plain stupid......
I don't really care if he's stupid OR evil...though I think both which is really scary. He needs to step down.
He needs voting out. If he steps down, he'll find a way to save face, maintain support and public exposure, and make way for one who is worse. He needs to be digraced and booted or voted out.
But now everybody knows his name and those to stupid to research before they vote will see a familiar moniker on the ballot paper and give it a big ole check.....
Answer from not necessarily a news source.
Worth reading.
Todd Akin apparently believes the body can suppress conception or cause miscarriage after rape.
Isn't this similar to the "morning-after" pill? Perhaps Akin is going down the wrong path? Perhaps he should give some consideration to prosecuting women who are raped and do not get pregnant for "spontaneous self-abortion"?
The
Family Research Council has offered strong support for Akin, saying this is a case of "gotcha politics" and that people including Republicans calling for Akin to withdraw from the race "lack backbone". omg. The FRC is saying that the people of Missouri know Akin, that he's been elected five times, he's a defender of life, yadda yadda yadda. What a dilemma for the Republicans.
“We feel this is a case of gotcha politics,” she said. “He has been elected five times. That community in Missouri, they know who Todd Akin is. We know who Todd Akin is because we’ve worked with him up on the Hill. He’s a defender of life. He’s a defender of families. This is just a controversy built up, it looks as though, to support his opposition. Claire McCaskill on the other hand has supported Planned Parenthood all these years…Todd Akin is getting a very bad break here. We support him fully and completely.”
Mackey added that she’s not agreeing or disagreeing with his statement.
“I know nothing about the [COLOR="Red"]science[/COLOR] or the legal implications of his statement,” she said. “I do know politics, and I know gotcha politics when I see it.”
Um, so maybe you shouldn't call yourselves the Family Research Council.
Numnut.
Buddy boy Akin needs to take a high school biology class, just sayin'.
Wait... this is Missouri. That's 'intelligent design in schools' territory. Never mind.
See, that's exactly what I want to know. What does he call a 'legitimate rape'?
He defines 'legitimate' rape as 'forcible' rape.
So Huckabee gave Akin a chance to apologize for the comment, and he did -- he said something that was "wrong," and hurtful to rape victims. Good so far. But right after that, Huckabee prodded Akin to define what he meant by "legitimate." Did he mean "forcible"?
Yes, said Akin. "I was talking about forcible rape," he said. "I used the wrong word."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/20/akin_when_i_was_talking_about_legitimate_rape_i_meant_forcible_rape.htmlHe defines 'legitimate' rape as 'forcible' rape.
Can't think of a type of rape (again, there's different kinds now?) where there isn't someone forcing themselves on another person. Has rape-by-osmosis been established then?
perhaps as opposed to statutory rape?
Can't think of a type of rape (again, there's different kinds now?) where there isn't someone forcing themselves on another person. Has rape-by-osmosis been established then?
Naive child. There are two types of rape.
'Legitimate' rape can be defined as when the woman becomes so traumatized by the rape event that her body doesn't allow the pregnancy process to happen (just trust me this....don't bother me with this science bullshit).
'Other" rape can be defined as when the woman is not traumatized by the rape event, leading her body to believe it was consensual and allows the pregnancy process to happen. This should actually not be considered rape because she is obviously being a drama queen but those damn femi-nazis and liberal professors got to define "rape" first.
Akin's staying in the race. Wow.
"The good people of Missouri nominated me, and I'm not a quitter," he said. "And my belief is we're going to take this thing forward and, by the grace of God, we're going to win this race."
Senator Cornyn, head of the Republican Party Senatorial Committee has urged Akin to withdraw from the race.
If Akin does not withdraw from the race by tomorrow, the GOP would be unable to replace him on the ballot with a candidate of its choice. Erick Erickson, founder of redstate.com, said Akin would surely lose the election, if he remains in the race.
“I don’t think he can get through the noise now,” Erickson said on CNN.
Publicly, Cornyn chose his words carefully.
“Congressman Akin’s statements were wrong, offensive, and indefensible,” he said in a statement release by the campaign committee. “I recognize that this is a difficult time for him, but over the next 24 hours, Congressman Akin should carefully consider what is best for him, his family, the Republican Party, and the values that he cares about and has fought for throughout his career in public service.”
Akin also chose his words carefully, saying he had made a “very serious error.” But he stopped short of saying he would heed Cornyn’s call.
What makes this interesting and urgent is that unless swift action is taken, his name will appear on the general election ballot in November.
Ushering Akin from the race is complicated by the fact that he has never been a candidate beholden to the party establishment. Since being elected to Congress in 2000, Akin has relied on a grassroots network of supporters. His Senate campaign is being run by his son.
Behind the scenes, Republican officials were looking for intermediaries Akin trusted to try to coax him from the race.
Missouri election law allows candidates to withdraw 11 weeks before Election Day. That means the deadline to exit the Nov. 6 election would be 5 p.m. Tuesday. Otherwise, a court order would be needed to remove a candidate's name from the ballot.
If Akin were to leave, state law holds that the Republican state committee has two weeks to name a replacement. The candidate would be required to file within 28 days of Akin's exit.
Politicians who are legitimately stupid rarely get elected.
Discuss.
Discuss? Ok. Let's hear from Tom Schaller over at the Baltimore Sun who has an opinion piece lovingly titled:
[SIZE="3"]Todd Akin rape claim is the tip of the GOP wacko iceberg
[/SIZE]
House Republicans make constant display of their tenuous grasp on reality
Some excerpts:
Indeed, Rep. Akin's comment is but one example of how bonkers House Republicans get when discussing sex, contraception, abortion or feminism. Georgia's Tom Price has claimed that not a single American woman lacks access to birth control. (A 2010 study reported that at least one-third of female voters, and more than half of women under 25, have difficulty accessing or paying for birth control.) Arizona's Trent Franks believes African-Americans were better off during slavery because abortion today "devastates" their community more than enslavement did. Florida's Allen West warned that liberal women are "neutering" American men and — I'm not making this up — that this trend will inevitably lead to higher deficits.
...
In a fit of pique about First Lady Michelle Obama'shealthy diet initiatives, Wisconsin's James Sensenbrenner mocked Mrs. Obama's "large posterior." Iowa's Steve King warned that our mixed-race president "has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race — on the side that favors the black person."
...
And who can forget South Carolina's Joe Wilson, who rose in the well of the House of Representatives during the president's nationally-televised 2009 health care address, pointed his finger at Mr. Obama and yelled,"You lie!"
Seriously? Who would want to be on their team?
In an effort to explain his stance on abortion, Representative Todd Akin,
the Republican Senate nominee from Missouri, provoked ire across the political spectrum
on Sunday by saying that in instances of what he called “legitimate rape,”
women’s bodies somehow blocked an unwanted pregnancy.
This is true.
It's also true that every time a politician tells a lie about rape,
both his nose and his dick get shorter.
Have you seen the latest picture of Todd Akin ?
.
I can't decide whether Akin's comments are stupidity, ignorance, politically motivated cynicism, or outright neurotic delusion.
Either way it's bloody appalling that this person might be even considered for public office.
America, you really worry me.
considered?
I know you're not from here, but Akin's not just considered for office, he's been in office for five terms already.
Yeah, I got that bit ... "
considered for" was my way of emphasising how far off I think he is. What are you,
Akin or something? ;)
Meanwhile...
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-misspokewhat-i-meant-to-say-is-i-am-dumb-as-dog,29256/gotcha. :)
re link:
LMAO!
Gosh bless the onion. Hilarious! :)
Senator Cornyn, head of the Republican Party Senatorial Committee has urged Akin to withdraw from the race.
That's the public statement. Necessary to defuse the issue among Akin's oppenents. But I suspect the party would rather have him run since he probably will still win the Senate seat.
The issue may be politically incorrect among the more educated. But his support is not from those people. I suspect Akin's strongest supporters quietly agree with him. Or really don't regard his statements as inflammatory. I suspect the party knows this. And minimizes harm by pretending to not support him.
Y'know what? I don't want to hear a single fucking right-wing conservative open their mouths about how bad Islam treats women ever again.
Jesus fucking christ.
Either way it's bloody appalling that this person might be even considered for public office.
1 point lead
And another!
Republicans Condemn Akin's Comments As Blemish On Party's Otherwise Spotless Women's Rights Record
http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-condemn-akins-comments-as-blemish-on-p,29259/That's the public statement. Necessary to defuse the issue among Akin's oppenents. But I suspect the party would rather have him run since he probably will still win the Senate seat.
The issue may be politically incorrect among the more educated. But his support is not from those people. I suspect Akin's strongest supporters quietly agree with him. Or really don't regard his statements as inflammatory. I suspect the party knows this. And minimizes harm by pretending to not support him.
I agree with most of what you've said tw. Public statement, check. Needed to distance themselves from Akin, check. I don't agree that they want him to run; I believe they'd rather have someone else who hasn't attracted and excited (Energized is the political buzzword) so much opposition. Of course the statement is politically incorrect, incorrect in so many ways not the least of which is factually incorrect. And sadly, you're right about his supporters who, not quietly, agree with him. They're just fine with his remark, who cares, no abortion, no exceptions, the end.
I welcome his opposition in this race, though I can't vote in that race. I think he's a good contrast to legitimate leaders, like McCaskill.
Lest we forget, it's not just Akin.
the truth is the "legitimate rape" comment made by U.S. Rep. Todd Akin -- as in pregnancy from "legitimate rape" is rare -- is not a GOP anomaly, but rather another disturbing glimpse into the viewpoint too many social conservatives have about women's health and reproductive rights. And if abortion is not among the "real issues," why is the GOP platform committee considering adding a ban, with no mention of exceptions, to this year's to-do list?
Last March, in a discussion in the Kansas House about whether women purchase separate abortion-only policies, Republican state Rep. Pete DeGraaf suggested women should plan ahead for rape the way he keeps a spare tire. A few weeks later, Indiana state Rep. Eric Turner, a Republican, said some women might fake being raped in order to get free abortions.
Former presidential hopeful Rick Santorum suggested doctors who perform an abortion on a woman who becomes pregnant from an attack should be thrown in jail and this year suggested rape victims who become pregnant from an attack should be forced to keep the baby and "make the best out of a bad situation."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/21/opinion/granderson-gop-rape-abortion/index.htmlAkin should be raped ... legitimately.
After that, maybe just maybe I'll listen to what he has to say.
yes, legitimately. so he wouldn't get pregnant.
Y'know what? I don't want to hear a single fucking right-wing conservative open their mouths... about... women ever again [snipped]
George Galloway is not currently covering himself in glory.
Although I have more respect for his reasoning having looked into all the information available.
I think he'll stay in the race. Then, there will be a court battle to remove him which will be successful. Then, the replacement GOP candidate will lose in the general election in November.
So the Republicans arent really assured of the conservative women's vote yet? I dont know about that. Any woman would be insane to vote for this guy, but Im pretty sure that prolifers wont change their minds about him.
I was listening to NPR this morning, and they interviewed a handful of this guy's constituents. Two of them were women who were fully supportive of him and thought he was a victim of gotcha politics.
Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then.
I mean, he is a pig and those two women are nuts.
I gotta start writing my manifesto, I suppose.
I heard that story and those women too. This really is "gotcha politics". GOTCHA! But for fucking fuck's sake people, even taking away his "I used one wrong word, one time", he doesn't have a public position that reflects reality. For me, that's enough to disqualify him. As others have opined, the truth matters, for some, and for others, the truth does not matter. I have seen or heard nothing about this issue that has contradicted my original assessment that his only "misspoke" was to actually say, out loud, what he believes.
If there weren't nothin' to be gotted then no one would have to have got him, get it?
Poor baby boohooo, gettin' all picked on and stuff. His mama should've aborted.
George Galloway is not currently covering himself in glory.
Although I have more respect for his reasoning having looked into all the information available.
I haven't been keeping up with Gorgeous George's exploits much lately. Ever since he hooked up with the rightwing conservative muslims. What's he been saying?
Akin should be raped ... legitimately.
After that, maybe just maybe I'll listen to what he has to say.
But then his rapist would have to be tried and would be convicted and end up with a sexual offender tag forever. I wouldn't want anyone to go through that because of Akin. Heck, I wouldn't want to wish Akin, in any sexual manner, on anyone, not even his wife.
Yeah, but I totally understand the sentiment. He's got no effin empathy for rape victims and women in general, because he doesn't ever have to worry about sharing their experiences.
Ya know, I think this is all just a run up to the 'Personhood Amendment'. Im really really glad that I am no longer in my childbearing years. My rights as a person would be akin to those of a slave.
And apparently, none of the statutory rapes or incest victims in Steve King's personal experience have ever gotten pregnant.
Holy crap. My goofy interpretation of Steve King's quote is actually
what his spokespeople are going with!
“What he was saying was, he personally does not know a girl who was raped,” Brittany Lesser, a spokesperson for King said. “He never says, ‘I’ve never heard of that.’ There’s a fine line between ‘I’ve never heard of that’ and ‘I don’t know personally anybody who’s been raped. There’s a difference. There is a difference.”
Good lord. Really? How stupid are we supposed to be? If any of this is damage control then they are completely misunderstanding the damage. "I'm so naive I didn't know such stuff actually happened."
See right through it.
OK now that King guy IS stupid.
It gets better, people. And by better, I mean more insanely creative, the lengths to which the GOP talking heads are rationalizing and justifying and diluting and distracting everyone who has seen the emperor's shiny buttocks.
I give you
Mike Huckabee.
According to Mike Huckabee, horrible rapes have created some extraordinary people.
“Ethel Waters, for example, was the result of a forcible rape,” Huckabee said of the late American gospel singer. One-time presidential candidate Huckabee added: “I used to work for James Robison back in the 1970s, he leads a large Christian organization. He, himself, was the result of a forcible rape. And so I know it happens, and yet even from those horrible, horrible tragedies of rape, which are inexcusable and indefensible, life has come and sometimes, you know, those people are able to do extraordinary things.”
There's more, but really? What is the point? Akin's shown his colors, and people agree with his views about the whole deal, or not. No one's being persuaded. But there are a lot of people who now see clearly what was previously just beneath the surface.
*sidetracking...... maybe.....*
so wait..... we shouldn't kill rape-babies because they might become good people, but it's ok to kill convicts because the chances are they probably did it and a few deaths of innocents is an OK price?
um, and this is all posturing BS too ....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19339362
To publicly urge a same-party candidate to resign, is all about the one doing the urging and not about the fuck-upper.
He described the response to his comments as a "little bit of an over-reaction", saying he had mistaken "one word in one sentence on one day".
from your link.
ORLY?
let me guess, that word is "legitimate"? no? "rape"? "woman"? "pregnant"?
I actually can't guess.
What *one* word would change this whole thing around?
The Owner of The Couch forum posted this…
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/
…the abstract of which is this…
Is a given instance of rape more likely to result in pregnancy than a given instance of consensual sex? This paper undertakes a review and critique of the literature on rape-pregnancy. Next, it presents our own estimation, from U.S. government data, of pregnancy rates for reproductive age victims of penile-vaginal rape. Using data on birth control usage from the Statistical Abstract of the United States, we then form an estimate of rapepregnancy rates adjusted for the substantial number of women in our sample who would likely have been protected by oral contraception or an IUD. Our analysis suggests that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a sizable margin, even before adjusting for the use of relevant forms of birth control. Possible explanations for this phenomenon are discussed, as are its implications to ongoing debates over the ultimate causes of rape.
mornin hq
I didn't buy the paper for 40 bucks, so, I don't know what it says. But with respect to pregnancy from rape rates, I've heard from sources I found credible numbers around 5%. So, it's not vanishingly small. And by comparison, pregnancy from consensual sex might be the same or higher (conceivably lower--hehehehe I said conceivably), but, so what?
Poor brother Akin's remarks were not so inflammatory just because of the rate, which he apparently underestimates by a good margin, but because it reveals a huge gap between his understanding and reality. He compounds this error (ignorance is only an original sin, and curable) by doubling down in all his follow up statements. He does eventually say that people do get pregnant from rape, but this is really just the last veil stripped from his true belief. No abortion because the innocent child should not be punished.
That's a noble notion, but his claim that a fertilized egg is a child is unsupported by everything I know. The urge to cue Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred" as their theme song is almost as irresistible as the claim is ridiculous. Though I can't find a cite right now, it seems clear that this is Akin's position.
Akin's comments echoed as far away as the Democratic Republic of Congo, where award-winning playwright Eve Ensler penned a powerful open letter titled, "Dear Mr. Akin, I Want You to Imagine..."
Akin isn't giving up The U.S. author of "The Vagina Monologues" wrote that she was lying awake at 2 a.m. in Bukavu in the City of Joy in the Congo where she was working to support "thousands of women who have been raped and violated and tortured from this ceaseless war for minerals fought on their bodies."
"Mr. Akin, your words have kept me awake," she wrote, before explaining what it means for women who have been raped to hear him make the distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape.
"The underlying assumption of your statement is that women and their experiences are not to be trusted. That their understanding of rape must be qualified by some higher, wiser authority," she wrote, before imploring him to imagine someone "violently, hatefully forcing themself into you so that you are ripped apart."
On a more serious note, Brooks wrote: "What strikes me about the anachronistic attitudes of evangelicals and their Republican puppets to abortion, contraception, family planning, female economic empowerment and feminism in general, is just how unambiguously male these attitudes are.
"An entire political party in one of the most advanced and educated countries on earth has become a caricature of the most basal evolved insecurities about masculinity. They seem terrified of losing control over the means of reproduction and petrified of cuckoldry," he said.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/world/akin-international-rape-reaction/index.html?hpt=hp_t2"I didn't buy the paper for 40 bucks"
Me neither...the abstract is all I got too. As to what it says, the abstract gives a sufficient overview to work with, hence my suggestion 'make of this what you will and can'.
#
*"a huge gap between his understanding and reality"
Agreed.
*it's the gap my posting of the abstract addresses...Akin believes a woman's flesh is capable of distinguishing between consensual and nonconsensual sex...he believes the flesh can then 'act accordingly'.
If the paper the abstract is drawn from is accurate, then, one potential and unsettling conclusion is a woman's body may indeed distinguish between consensual and nonconsensual sex and, in 'acting accordingly' may become more fertile (or receptive to insemination).
I offer no moral, ethical, or even personal assessment here...just offering up the nugget for each to do with as he or she will.
I googled this...
"Are per-incident rape-pregnancy rates higher than per-incident consensual pregnancy rates?"
...the title of the paper and abstract, and found this...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/20/study-rape-victims-have-a-higher-pregnancy-rates-than-other-women/
"As to why rape victims would have a higher rate of pregnancy, the Gottschalls put forward a few theories. They look at previous research, which suggests that men are more attracted to women who are fertile and ovulating. In consensual sex, women can decline sex at a time where there might be a high likelihood of pregnancy. That’s not the case in rape."
I prefer the above explanation(s) to the (again) unsettling notion rape could be biologically or evolutionarily beneficial.
In any event, as V says, "(there is) a huge gap between (Akin's) understanding and reality".
I can get the article for free (yay public university!) but I'm not going to post it for legal reasons. PM if interested.
If the paper the abstract is drawn from is accurate, then, one potential and unsettling conclusion is a woman's body may indeed distinguish between consensual and nonconsensual sex and, in 'acting accordingly' may become more fertile (or receptive to insemination).
... you were doing much better before this edit.
My theory for why the rate of pregnancy from consensual sex might be lower is that there's just a lot more sex going on, period (hehehe, I said period). Since there is just one chance for pregnancy per month, that rate gets... diluted when there's so much more non-baby making sex is going on.
So: I don't get an A?
*shrug*
I can't believe we're having discussions about the scientific validity of that pasty old white man's statement, when all over the world cats are sneaking into babies' cribs and stealing their breath!
--a public service announcement brought to you by Old Husband's Tales, Inc.
Everyone knows the babies are askin' for it.
Ch'yeah. Now get in the kitchen, baby, and make me a sandwich.
Don't be silly...that should be 'now crawl into the kitchen, baby, and make me a poop.'
I got carried away, so giddy was I with all this smart boy talk about a statement that deserves no second thought beyond "this Akin guy is stupid and dangerous and a misogynist."
Although I'm sure his handlers have him saying stuff about how much he really loves women and stuff; they make the best sandwiches.
Sorry guys, I was kidding...being my sarcastic old self. ;)
Sorry guys, I was kidding...being my sarcastic old self. ;)
Don't be sorry for being yourself, we love yourself! Or at least I do.
Exactly, and your response was quite appropriate.
... a statement that deserves no second thought beyond "this Akin guy is stupid and dangerous and a misogynist."
But that is mostly less relevant. We know that an adult who still thinks like a child automatically believes what he is told. Therefore children are more often recruited to do things that are stupid or unreasonable. The word 'brainwashing' is simply another description. That person then seeks 'proof' to justify his ideology or feelings. Meanwhile an adult learns facts and numbers. Then uses that knowledge to obtain a conclusion. Also called reasoning.
So what does that say about Akin? Well proven science says his ideological beliefs are wrong. Why then did he also reiterate hearsay(also called junk science) to justify his political agenda? Is he an adult who knows from facts and logical reasoning? Or a child who only recites what the 'powers that be' told him to believe.
Children know mostly from memory - what they were told. Adults use part of the brain that forms after the age of 16. And therefore learn why knowledge from hearsay or observation is bogus.
Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband. So why did Congressman Akins recite a conclusion without first learning science? What does he use to make conclusions? Logical reasoning or ideology from the political agenda?
His actions suggest brainwashing by a political agenda has more relevance than facts, science, and numbers. So, does he think like an adult? Or does he recite hearsay and soundbytes like an adult who still thinks like a child?
I don't know. In which instance might I get to punch him in his stoopid face? ;)
I don't know. In which instance might I get to punch him in his stoopid face? ;)
Dress up like a fawning conservative bible belt page girl and apply to work on his campaign. You might get a number of chances to do that.;)
I'm an accomplished actress, yes, but I don't think even I could pull off that role. ;)
'So hey, whatever happened to Infi?'
'What you didn't hear about that? She went off to pretend to be a bible-belt religious conservative activist, and fell through a gap in reality. It was brutal.'
'Yeah, I heard her head exploded and some new universe was created.'
[SIZE="1"]But that is mostly less relevant. We know that an adult who still thinks like a child automatically believes what he is told. Therefore children are more often recruited to do things that are stupid or unreasonable. The word 'brainwashing' is simply another description. That person then seeks 'proof' to justify his ideology or feelings. Meanwhile an adult learns facts and numbers. Then uses that knowledge to obtain a conclusion. Also called reasoning.
So what does that say about Akin? Well proven science says his ideological beliefs are wrong. Why then did he also reiterate hearsay(also called junk science) to justify his political agenda? Is he an adult who knows from facts and logical reasoning? Or a child who only recites what the 'powers that be' told him to believe.
Children know mostly from memory - what they were told. Adults use part of the brain that forms after the age of 16. And therefore learn why knowledge from hearsay or observation is bogus.[/SIZE]
Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband. [SIZE="1"]So why did Congressman Akins recite a conclusion without first learning science? What does he use to make conclusions? Logical reasoning or ideology from the political agenda?
His actions suggest brainwashing by a political agenda has more relevance than facts, science, and numbers. So, does he think like an adult? Or does he recite hearsay and soundbytes like an adult who still thinks like a child?[/SIZE]
If you're an adult, you'll provide a cite for this statement. Otherwise, I'll consider it ideology/brainwashing/hearsay/junk science soundbite from someone who thinks like a child.
You'd be amazed how many of our cultures' assumptions about gender originate with that medieval misundrstanding of female organs. Many of the others originate with the next great scientific misunderstanding which followed on from that during the European enlightenment.
Akin is in a position to MAYBE win, but it's looking grim for him. But the state's demographics strongly favor a Republican win.
Akin has until Sept. 25 to drop out of the race. He hasn't said "no way" yet, but he seems extremely reluctant, in spite of the national party apparatus throwing him under the bus.
If he DOES drop out, there's a very good chance that the GOP could nominate someone with a much better shot, less tainted by the controversy.
If the democrats know what's good for 'em, they're gonna "rope-a-dope" for a while, let Akin's narrow lead hang around until AFTER the deadline, THEN hit him with everything they've got after there's nobody else the GOP can replace him with.
Akin is in a position to MAYBE win, but it's looking grim for him. But the state's demographics strongly favor a Republican win.
Akin has until Sept. 25 to drop out of the race. He hasn't said "no way" yet, but he seems extremely reluctant, in spite of the national party apparatus throwing him under the bus.
If he DOES drop out, there's a very good chance that the GOP could nominate someone with a much better shot, less tainted by the controversy.
If the democrats know what's good for 'em, they're gonna "rope-a-dope" for a while, let Akin's narrow lead hang around until AFTER the deadline, THEN hit him with everything they've got after there's nobody else the GOP can replace him with.
too late to edit - I posted this without seeing that there was a page 2 (with 60 posts per page that is), hence the non-sequitur-ness. still relevant, thread drift notwithstanding.
We've got another one.
Mark Scolforo, Associated Press: How would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Do you have a way to explain that?
Smith: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to.. she chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.
Scolforo: Similar how?
Smith: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock.
Scolforo: That’s similar to rape?
Smith: No, no, no, but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar. But, back to the original, I’m pro-life, period.
How stupid are pasty old white guys trying to look?
They're doing a bang-up job, for sure.
Problem 1: Child-out-of-wedlock is similar to rape.
Problem 2: I'm glad my daughter made a choice I agree with, but I wish I could have forced her to if she hadn't.
ETA: Though it looks like he's not going to disprove
this thread's title.
Seriously, America, I think it's time you went to see the school counselor.
Dear Zen,
Please excuse the regular kids in the class. Our dog ate our homework.
Signed,
Epstein's mother
Problem 1: Child-out-of-wedlock is similar to rape.
I would love to see an assessment which produces a scatter graph that gets at what activities people see as more "evil" than others. I have this gut feeling that these nutters would place consensual pre-marital /extra-marital sex too damn close to rape, but we'd also be surprised at other human activities which get a pass or an over-reaction.
I wonder if the misstep is not what people think it is, here. I imagine, for example, that his daughter was underage when she got knocked up. What if he was about to say that in her situation it was statutory rape--but she married the guy after all, and it wouldn't make for a very nice Thanksgiving if he accidentally got his son-in-law incarcerated years after the fact.
Still, as a supposed victim of statutory "rape" myself, I know firsthand that the lines are a lot blurrier when it comes to consensual underage vs. forcible. They are still nothing alike.
Then he should have explained that. In your scenario, is he actually ashamed that his underage daughter sinned, wasn't pure?
At what point will he schedule her stoning then? The book most of these guys claim to follow as the only guide to life they need says unmarried mothers should be stoned.
Or would he (or the rest of them) fess up to cherry-picking the parts that suit them/their situation best?
Then he should have explained that. In your scenario, is he actually ashamed that his underage daughter sinned, wasn't pure?
No no, because the woman is too stupid/innocent to make any decision regarding sex. That's why it's always rape, unless the man gets God's permission and marries her first.
I can't believe we're having discussions about the scientific validity of that pasty old white man's statement, when all over the world cats are sneaking into babies' cribs and stealing their breath!
--a public service announcement brought to you by Old Husband's Tales, Inc.
Ohhh, Infi you insensitive bitch. That was low. You know damn well that my cat's breath was stolen by a baby in the towers on 9/11.
--a public service announcement brought to you by Tired Old Internet Memes, Inc.
I'm finding it really hard to stay away from religion here, which will undoubtedly cause me to offend just about every body, so i think I'd better stop.
Nonsense. No matter what your religious belief, it must have zero affect on anyone else. Satanic is the man who imposes his religion on anyone else.
Religion is only a relationship between you and your god. Even your church is only a adviser who says at the end the day, "Only you have the correct beliefs." Does not matter if you believe something different from the pastor or church. His job, at the end of the day, is to respect the only relevant relationship - between you and your god.
A church that expels parishioners (because they have different religious beliefs) is the only evil party. If your religious opinions offend anyone else, then that other person is evil. Because your religion is never imposed on them. And their beliefs never imposed on you. Same concepts apply to any non-Satanic person anywhere in the world.
Satan loves when the Pope orders all American legislatures to impose Catholic doctrine on all Americans. No wonder this Pope also all but protected pedophilia. Another example of religion imposing their dogma on all others. Because the Church is even more important than god. And because those concepts even justify the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition.
No wonder women cannot be trusted in any position of authority in Satan's favorite religions.
snip--
Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband. So why did Congressman Akins recite a conclusion without first learning science? What does he use to make conclusions? Logical reasoning or ideology from the political agenda?
--snip
Good to see you back in this thread again, tw.
Care to back up your statement now?
Care to back up your statement now?
Nope.
You'd be amazed how many of our cultures' assumptions about gender originate with that medieval misundrstanding of female organs.
What? that's crazy talk, we all know they don't exist.
Oh dear, I'm so embarrassed. :o I misread what you wrote. I thought you wrote female orgasms. :bolt:
I only remember two illegitimate rapes. Both cases involve consensual sex until they were caught, one by a cop and the other by a relative of the girl. In both cases the girl claimed she was being raped.
I would imagine that the closer society moves towards a right-wing christian ideal, the more 'illegitimate' rapes there will be. As the social consequences for the woman of extra-marital or pre-marital sex increase there would be a greater need to explain it away by designating it as non-consensual.
This may well mean that in stricter families and communities there is a greater risk of consensual sex being classified as non-consensual. Which could then feed back into that family and community and form a greater suspicion of women's claims of rape.
Nope.
I am unsurprised.
The statement is unsupportable; the statement is false. When you repeat lies like this you severely damage your credibility. You double the damage when (in the same post, no less) you assail someone for doing the same thing:
So what does that say about Akin? Well proven science says his ideological beliefs are wrong. Why then did he also reiterate hearsay(also called junk science) to justify his political agenda? Is he an adult who knows from facts and logical reasoning? Or a child who only recites what the 'powers that be' told him to believe.
Children know mostly from memory - what they were told. Adults use part of the brain that forms after the age of 16. And therefore learn why knowledge from hearsay or observation is bogus.
You've got a lot going for you tw. You squander much of it with such hypocrisy.
right-wing christian ideal
Four words were never more mis-matched.:yelsick:
The statement is unsupportable; the statement is false.
Of course it isn't. Considering the number of statements I have made so contrary to popular belief (ie predicting Desert Storm and its response months in advance, the mythical Saddam WMDs, a financial morass called AIG, stupidity of the Chevy Volt, actual cost of Mission Accomplished, escalating military tensions between China and its neighbors, etc). Since overwhelmingly unpopular statements have been proven correct so often, then you should accuse with caution. Or at least first learn some facts rather than entertain a feeling. The emotional only remember how unpopular those statement were; and forget unpopular statements were also the accurate ones.
Facts come from research into infidelity and propagation of the species. Long known was that infidelity and rape tends to result in a higher fertility. That was never disputed. Researchers have been asking why. Genetic diversity is considered important for the advancement of the species. For example, one in five children are sired by someone other than the wife's spouse. A number that has held consistent even during the 1950s when adults were so more 'moral'. The resulting diversity is considered genetically healthy. A trend that begs the current hypothesis.
A higher fertility rate during rape or infidelity creates increased genetic diversity. Undisputed is the higher fertility rate. The outstanding question is why and how important that would be for survival of the species.
Research with animals in England and Australia both demonstrated that the male who "copulatory ambushes" the female also have sperm with higher fertility rates. The romancing mate or 'pretty boy' male tends to be less fertile. In this case, the rapist and not the victim is more fertile. Bottom line conclusion remains despite unsubstantiated and speculative denials.
Also noted; women tend to become more interested or flirtatious with 'other' males around the time of ovulation. Not only spending more attention on them. But also having increased sexual fantasies about them. Another reason why women tend to have more children from extramarital liaisons - desired or forced.
Other interesting trends also exist. Men under increased stress prefer heavier women with bigger butts. Another trend also believed related to species survival.
Adults who suffered through famines as children or adolescents tend to have fatter children. Also unpopular because many only feel it must be wrong rather than first learn facts. How can a famine decades earlier change genetics? Another question not yet answered. But that trend is also clear. Another trend suspected to be related to survival of the species.
Do you feel those are also wrong ... without first learning facts? Responsible denial means first learning facts before condemning. Shame on you for posting cheapshots.
I would imagine that the closer society moves towards a right-wing christian ideal, the more 'illegitimate' rapes there will be. As the social consequences for the woman of extra-marital or pre-marital sex increase there would be a greater need to explain it away by designating it as non-consensual.
This may well mean that in stricter families and communities there is a greater risk of consensual sex being classified as non-consensual. Which could then feed back into that family and community and form a greater suspicion of women's claims of rape.
Historically, rape has been seen less as a violation of a woman than as a theft from a man to whom that woman belonged, either her husband or her father, who suffered an economic loss (a woman’s marriageability spoiled) and an insult to his honor. There was also the problem of bastard children, who were considered a social burden; the Athenian state, for example, was primarily occupied with protecting bloodlines, and so treated rape and adultery the same way. Hammurabi’s code describes rape victims as adulterers; English law of the seventeenth century takes a similar position. In Puritan Massachusetts, any woman pregnant through rape was prosecuted for fornication. In the nineteenth century, the American courts remained biased toward protecting men who might be falsely accused. In order to prove that an encounter was a rape, the woman had to demonstrate that she had resisted and been overcome; she usually had to show bodily harm as evidence of her struggle; and she had somehow to prove that the man had ejaculated inside her.
In the early and mid-twentieth century, rape remained underreported because women feared adverse consequences if they spoke out about what had happened to them. In 1938, Dr. Aleck Bourne was put on trial in England for performing an abortion on a fourteen-year-old rape victim, and his acquittal reflected a populist movement to liberalize abortion, especially for rape victims. The trial was widely covered in the U.S. and led to open debate about the validity of abortion; the following year, the first hospital abortion committee in the United States was formed, and by the nineteen-fifties these committees were ubiquitous. Although they approved only “therapeutic” abortions, they increasingly accepted the recommendations of psychiatrists who said a woman’s mental health was endangered by her pregnancy. Well-connected and well-to-do women could obtain psychiatric diagnoses fairly easily, and so abortions became the province of the privileged. Ordinary rape victims often had to prove that they were nearly deranged. Some were diagnosed as licentious, and had to consent to sterilization to obtain abortions.
much moreRegarding strident calls from the Republican Party for Akin to withdraw from the race, I find myself on Akin's side. I feel he should stay in the race. And not only because I think he is a poor candidate and that McCaskill can and should prevail in the general election against him. But also because he is the choice of the voters. Akin said as much himself, and more power to him. I think he's wrong on the facts, and those who believe him are wrong too. But it is true that he was chosen by the voters to stand in the general election.
The alternative is to accede to the wishes of the party. The party wants to reject the clear intent of the voters. I find this objectionable. I find it hypocritical for any party leadership to make such demands. The party backed him in the first place, put him forward as the party's representative, and in other circumstances proclaims "the will of the voter this" and "the will of the voter that". This is as patronizing as a parent of a young child, when faced with a child who is aggravatingly copying their parent's bad behavior, says "do as I say, not as I do". Only ten times more patronizing and insulting as we voters are not children.
Stay in the race Akin. I hope you lose, but you deserve to run.
Men under increased stress prefer heavier women with bigger butts.
tw! :eek:
:lol:
tw!
Us black people love big butts.
Regarding strident calls from the Republican Party for Akin to withdraw from the race, I find myself on Akin's side. I feel he should stay in the race.
Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.
Also curious - and I don't understand what this means. McCaskill had manipulated her primary campaign ads to feed or encourage support to Akin. I do believe Cellar dwellers exist in MO. What was that report saying?
Shame on you for posting cheapshots.
Let's get the cheapshot out of the way first, shall we?
Do you even know where babies come from dumbass? You don't indicate any such knowledge with your recent posts.
There? Feel better? Until now, I haven't made any cheapshots, the ridiculousness of your claim makes mockery impossible (see
Poe's Law).
Nope.
It's still "Nope." despite your subsequent posts. Now to your further failure to support your claim with any evidence whatsoever.
I asked you to provide some support for this claim of yours:
snip--
Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband.
--snip
Let's review what you say.
I said your claim is false. You say
Of course it isn't.
Ok, you're off to a good start. You've unabiguously reiterated your belief in your original statement. I asked you for a cite, or some other evidence to bolster your claim that
Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.
and you follow up with:
Considering the number of statements I have made so contrary to popular belief (ie predicting Desert Storm and its response months in advance, the mythical Saddam WMDs, a financial morass called AIG, stupidity of the Chevy Volt, actual cost of Mission Accomplished, escalating military tensions between China and its neighbors, etc).
A nonsensical sentence fragment. Hm.
Since overwhelmingly unpopular statements have been proven correct so often, then you should accuse with caution. Or at least first learn some facts rather than entertain a feeling. The emotional only remember how unpopular those statement were; and forget unpopular statements were also the accurate ones.
What are you saying here? You've made extremely unpopular statements in the past, but were correct, so I should challenge you on
Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.
"with caution"? I have learned many facts, I am cautious when caution is called for. Your claim is certainly "overwhelmingly unpopular" but it still hasn't been "proven correct". Not yet anyway, but you talk some more, so let's go see.
...
Facts come from research into infidelity and propagation of the species.
A quibble--facts can be revealed from research, they don't actually come from research
Long known was that infidelity and rape tends to result in a higher fertility.
See? This is a claim, it is not evidence. It is an assertion,
a false attribution or
an appeal to tradition, both fallacious.
That was never disputed.
Whether or not it has ever been disputed before (and I'm skeptical of that one too), I'm disputing it now. Still no evidence.
Researchers have been asking why. Genetic diversity is considered important for the advancement of the species. For example, one in five children are sired by someone other than the wife's spouse. A number that has held consistent even during the 1950s when adults were so more 'moral'. The resulting diversity is considered genetically healthy. A trend that begs the current hypothesis.
What the heck are you talking about? I read ahead and this little detour into a different fantasy and it doesn't connect with your original claim about that
Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion.
A higher fertility rate during rape or infidelity creates increased genetic diversity. Undisputed is the higher fertility rate. The outstanding question is why and how important that would be for survival of the species.
You're fond of using "undisputed" and "never disputed" and "long known" when you try to round out an argument for one of your claims. The REAL outstanding question is "where are the facts to support your claims?". Answer that one and the others will be much easier to explain and understand.
Research with animals in England and Australia both demonstrated that the male who "copulatory ambushes" the female also have sperm with higher fertility rates. The romancing mate or 'pretty boy' male tends to be less fertile.
Cite, please.
In this case, the rapist and not the victim is more fertile. Bottom line conclusion remains despite unsubstantiated and speculative denials.
Let me try to paraphrase you to check my understanding: "I'm right because I'm right because you haven't disproved my claim." Ridiculous.
Also noted; women tend to become more interested or flirtatious with 'other' males around the time of ovulation. Not only spending more attention on them. But also having increased sexual fantasies about them. Another reason why women tend to have more children from extramarital liaisons - desired or forced.
Other interesting trends also exist. Men under increased stress prefer heavier women with bigger butts. Another trend also believed related to species survival.
Adults who suffered through famines as children or adolescents tend to have fatter children. Also unpopular because many only feel it must be wrong rather than first learn facts. How can a famine decades earlier change genetics?
I'm just tired of trying to understand your logic. There's so much noise and so little signal..."forced extramarital liasons" um... is that code for illegitimate rape? Come on man. Talk english, it aren't that hard.
Another question not yet answered.
At last, a true statement. This should be your signature, or at least your disclaimer
But that trend is also clear. Another trend suspected to be related to survival of the species.
Do you feel those are also wrong ... without first learning facts? Responsible denial means first learning facts before condemning.
Since I'm not a child, I learn from other ways--not just from the pedantic repetition of dogma (or dog crap). I'd be happy to deny your claims responsibly if you would just share some actual facts. Let's see some facts from you. Until you do, your claims remain unsubstantiated. Show us some of the facts and proof you esteem so highly.
Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.
--snip
So... let me try to understand. Election not a slam dunk in your opinion, maybe indicating an evenly divided electorate.
Most people already decided, maybe indicating little change in the current state of mind of the electorate.
then...
Polls put McCaskill far behind, maybe indicating a wide margin of victory for Akin since McCaskill's behind.
See? How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.
Furthermore, McCaskill is not "far behind" in the polls according to my research.
She's ahead.*applauds*
Nicely done V.
The men preferring bigger women when stressed is from a recent study that was splashed all over the news a little while ago. Men were put into stresful situations (such as public speaking) and their BMI preferences charted. It was in order to test out at a small scale what tends to be seen at a bigger scale between food secure communities and food poor communities.
The research supports other work that has shown perceptions of physical attractiveness alter with levels of economic and physiological stress linked to lifestyle.
"If you follow people moving from low-resource areas to higher resource-areas, you find their preferences shift over the course of about 18 months. In evolutionary psychology terms, you try to fit your preferences to what works best in a particular environment," said Dr Tovee.
Moreover, the researchers were keen to emphasise how fluctuating environmental conditions could alter the popular perception of an "ideal" body size.
What that has to do with the female body apparently being more likely to conceive during high emotion, I have no fucking clue. Except in the very broadest sense: evolutionary developments favour healthy procreation and that affects desire and behaviour, as well as physiological responses. But that can't be trotted out as a general argument for a specific phenomenon wihout that phenomenon being proven in its own right.
This smacks of the 'well it stands to reason, doesn't it..?' line of arguing. The sort of thing that seems to make sense because of other very looselyrelated stuff. There's a whole library's worth of pseudo-scientific bullshit floating around in our culture about evolutionary aspects of gender. It seems to have a greater grip on our imaginations than the stuff that can actually be proved.
Reveiw the science. Statistics suggest that women are more likely to become pregnant from sex that occurs during greater emotion. That applies both to rape and to illicit sex (martial cheating). Yes, the pretty boy lover is more often likely to get a wife pregnant than the husband.
Someone needs to tell Maury he's out of a job.
Someone needs to tell Maury he's out of a job.
What does Maury say?
He makes his money on a TV show which seems to exist solely to provide DNA tests.
Or at least those are the only ones we get over here.
How am I supposed to reconcile your first statement with your third statement? You seem to contradict yourself.
The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.
Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.
Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.
We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.
Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.
Akins only made it interesting.
He makes his money on a TV show which seems to exist solely to provide DNA tests.
So what in those DNA tests are relevant here?
BTW, I believe UK was considering laws that banned using someone's DNA to perform a paternity test without their knowledge. Did that become law?
What the heck are you talking about? I read ahead and this little detour into a different fantasy and it doesn't connect with your original claim about that ...
I'm just tired of trying to understand your logic. There's so much noise and so little signal..."forced extramarital liasons" um... is that code for illegitimate rape? Come on man. Talk english, it aren't that hard.
Why so many denials only from your emotions. And not one fact based in any research. Facts were posted. And again your denials. Well UG is famous for knowing something is wrong because he also feels. Where is your knowledge from science? Nothing but a long post of cheapshot denials - without even one fact.
Summarized were studies that demonstrated, in people and animals, when a female becomes more likely to conceive. Research that contradicts Akins. Even posted were phrases directly from those studies (ie "copulatory ambushes"). So you post cheapshot denials because phrases used in science are foreign? You were suppose to know this stuff BEFORE making conclusions.
If your knowledge is from science, then you knew "forced extramarital liaisons" is an expression found in science. Denying science without even learning the phrases is your emotions saying, well ...
I guess we need a new UG. Since your every denial comes without and facts. You even get angry at phrases used by researchers.
Facts from many studies throughout the world contradict Akins. Females are more likely to conceive during an event of high emotion such as rape or infidelity. So instead, you get angry at the English used by researchers. Resistance is futile. You must do better to dethrone UG.
Fact: women are somewhat more likely to conceive during these events. A fact that has so many Darwinist researchers asking why that is relevant. Fact: animal studies demonstrate higher male fertility rates during "copulatory ambushes" (I believe that conclusion was published by multiple studies about 2001.) Fact: women tend to be more pernicious when they are more likely to conceive. (I believe that study was in a Western US university involving maybe 50 women - 30 who had steady boyfriends - somewhere around 2007.)
After how many posts, where do you cite even one science fact? You have yet to support your emotions with one study. Like UG, you posted plenty of cheapshot denials. And a few personal insults. But then I also expect that from UG. Should we conclude you agree with Akins? Based upon your posted facts, that is a real possibility. Are you really a closet Akins supporter? I would have never guessed.
I bet his campaign posters are now collector's items. Can't wait to see you on PBS's Antique Roadshow.
Tdub, just post some evidence or stfu. You can't just say it's a fact because you borrowed some phrasing from scientific papers and expect people to just take your word for its veracity.
How bout some of this?
When stress hormone levels run high, women are less likely to conceive and more likely to miscarry (Sapolsky 2004; Nepomaschy et al 2006).
http://www.parentingscience.com/Stress-hormones-during-pregnancy.html
And a little of this:
No one is sure why forced sex is statistically a more successful reproductive strategy than consensual sex. "We think it might be because rapists tend to target young women at peak fertility," Gottschall says. Holmes confirms that most rapes occur in women under 25, and pre-pubescent girls, post-menopausal women and visibly pregnant women are statistically underrepresented among female rape victims, according to Gordon Gallup, an evolutionary psychologist at SUNY-Albany who wrote about rape-related pregnancy in The Oxford Handbook of Sexual Conflict in Humans.
"Rapists don't pick victims at random," Gallup says. "Unbeknownst to them, rapists clearly target victims based on their likelihood of conception. They tend to preferentially target young, post-pubescent females that are in their reproductive prime."
Age alone doesn't it explain it, though, because per-incident rape-pregnancy rates are higher than consensual pregnancy rates even among young women. Seeking out youth and attractiveness -- a fertility cue, according to a growing body of evidence -- gives rapists the reproductive edge, the Gottschalls proposed in their paper. They cited evidence from the 2000 book A Natural History of Rape by University of New Mexico biologist Randy Thornhill and University of Missouri anthropologist Craig Palmer, indicating that rapists seek out young, attractive women.
The Gottschalls wrote: "We propose...that all men -- rapists and non-rapists -- have the capacity to 'read' fecundity cues and pursue the most attractive/fecund women that they can. However, since rapists circumvent the problem of female choice, while non-rapists must confront it, it is plausible that the average instance of rape occurs with a more attractive/fecund woman than the average instance of consensual intercourse. Thus we propose that rapists target victims not only on the basis of age but based on a whole complement of physical and behavioral signals indicating the victim's capacity to become pregnant and successfully carry a child to term."
I called Gordon Gallup for his perspective on rape-related pregnancy. Last year, during a conversation about the antidepressant effects of semen, he mentioned a theory that the nature of a rapist's ejaculate has something to do with his reproductive success. When I asked him to elaborate on that, he told me that semen contains follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH), which trigger ovulation during the female menstrual cycle. FSH is needed for sperm production, but the presence of LH in high levels is more mysterious because it's not important for male fertility. It's possible, Gallup says, that seminal fluid released during forced sex contains higher-than-normal levels of these hormones -- LH in particular -- which may trigger ovulation in the victim.
There's no direct evidence yet of sex-induced ovulation in humans, although there's some very new research hinting at the possibility. The LH in semen has been shown to trigger ovulation in camels, alpacas and llamas. Semen also makes female koalas ovulate, although LH hasn't been identified as the active ingredient in that species' semen yet. A 1973 study found that 70 percent of conceptions from rape occurred outside a woman's most fertile time. And a 1949 study cited seven women who reported becoming pregnant due to rape, despite having not had a period for up to two years leading up to the assault.
The idea that semen produced during rape is especially primed to promote pregnancy seems less far-fetched considering the well-established evidence that what a man is doing when he ejaculates affects the chemical makeup of his semen. Studies on artificial insemination show that semen collected from a man who used his imagination to become aroused and ejaculate is much less likely to result in conception than a sample collected from a man watching porn, Gallup says. Even more potent is semen collected after coitus interupptus, i.e. pulling out during actual sex. The conditions under which a man becomes aroused and ejaculates has been shown to affect factors like sperm count, shape and mobility.
If semen changes based on context, it's plausible, Gallup asserts, that participating in a rape can affect its chemical makeup. Ovulation-inducing semen would be especially useful during rape, which is usually a one-time encounter. As sinister as it is, the ability to unconsciously adjust semen to make it more potent during rape could be one reproductive strategy that evolved in men to increase their reproductive success.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-08/rape-results-more-pregnancies-not-less
It may be the case that women are more likely to conceive if they are experiencing high emotion. Or it may not. You have yet to show a single piece of evidence for it.
You can't just say it's a fact because you borrowed some phrasing from scientific papers and expect people to just take your word for its veracity.
I will not spend a half day researching what was published so many times so long ago. I summarized the studies I learned from. Cited enough details from those studies that you can go find them, if you must.
But the point reamins. I learned this stuff before posting. Big_V clearly has zero research. He only has his feelings. He only posts denials - not even one fact. Repeated denials when he clearly never learned this stuff is only a cheapshot. Politicians called it swiftboating.
Should I also cite the paper that proves a Higgs Bosum exists? Or will you take my word for it without quoting phrases used by those researchers.
The point is obvious. Big_V has conclusions accented by only by insults and denials. Without knowledge of even one study. If he had learned this stuff, then expressions such as "forced extramarital liaisons" and "copulatory ambushes" would not inspire displeasure. Why that emotion? Because Big_V is posting denials without learning any of this. He never read any of those phrases. In the tradition of UG and Akins.
Now, if you have a problem with these summarized studies, then quote a contrarian study. Don't deny because you don't like the conclusion. These things were written even at a layman level.
Secretion. That's a science word!
Well, I'm not a gynecologist. But I'll take a look.
The math is easy. McCaskill was behind by 11%to 14%. That obviously said nothing about where McCaskill is today. You are confusing what was with what is. Then assumed an "evenly divided race" conclusion without any reason other than your feelings. You jumped to a conclusion rather than read what was posted.
Now, for McCaskill to win, at least 6% or 7% of voters must change. I see no reason to believe Akins core support really care about his statments. Many apparently agree with him. I suspect most who would vote for Akins are attached to the 'liberal verse conservative' dogma. Don't care about realities. Just want to be told how to think.
Based in that suspicion, I suspect many politicians, who called for him to resign publically, were not doing so privately. It was only politically convenient them to do so.
We will see. If Akins does lose >6% of those who actually vote, then he did have significant moderate support. But I suspect behind the scenes, the 'powers that be' always knew where his support was coming from. If true, then they were only calling for him to withdrawl for political reasons; not from their hearts. Knowing full well the statement would be quickly forgotten even months later.
Rather depressing that so many actually support a political dogma that encourages Akins to make those statements. However even advertising can manipulate well over 50% to believe outright lies. And they deny being manipulated by that propaganda.
Akins only made it interesting.
You're not originally from this planet, are you?
I'm outclassed when it comes to trying to connect with you, trying to understand the logic behind your discussion. It is clear to me that we have dramatically different standards of proof, of cheapshots, of English, of the concept of linear, sequential time... that kind of stuff.
You've failed to convince me, or instruct me, or persuade me. There's been a bit of aggravation and a bit of amusement, but I've got better things to do than to teach you to sing. I withdraw from the field of debate. See ya!
I'm outclassed when it comes to trying to connect with you, trying to understand the logic behind your discussion.
I never expected to convince you of anything when 1) you deny published and summarized research, 2) makes denials without every having learned any of this stuff, and 3) attack phrases because you cannot dispute the concept, and 4) reply only with insults such as calling me 'dumb'. I had to confirm this was not UG.
Meanwhile, interesting that McCaskill has increased her polls by 15%. A major shift in any election. Implies MO does have a higher percentage of moderates. Also curious why such a major change did not get reported in any of my information sources.
In some polls, this race is still close. Just wondering is this one could become a barometer for national results now that exposed extremist rhetoric might have created a backlash against soundbytes reasoning.
So what in those DNA tests are relevant here?
Women don't need to go on Maury if they've cheated. They know it's the lover's baby.
BTW, I believe UK was considering laws that banned using someone's DNA to perform a paternity test without their knowledge. Did that become law?
No idea. Not relevant as Maury is an American show and anyway the DNA tests on it are consensual.
Classic! Where ya been?
workin and life and stuff.
Women don't need to go on Maury if they've cheated. They know it's the lover's baby.
Yes, but the go on Maury to find out which lover. Or if it that 3-D porn film she watched.:rolleyes:
Again, I do not think that election is a slam dunk. Most people had already decided long ago. Polls put McCaskill far behind.
Also curious - and I don't understand what this means. McCaskill had manipulated her primary campaign ads to feed or encourage support to Akin. I do believe Cellar dwellers exist in MO. What was that report saying?
I believe I read some of the Republicans were supporting a younger candidate, wanting to dump Akin, but McCaskill felt she had a better shot against Akin.
Years ago, letting Akin run with his foot in his mouth would have been the RNC saying he's been a loyal old war horse, he'll probably lose but let him run and retire. But not now, they will fight tooth and nail for every seat, especially in the senate. If they didn't think he could win, they'd probably assassinate him. Besides, Ryan and company agree with him.
More
Akin.
[INDENT]Apologizing to all people, a lot of countries who are enemies, and apologizing to them and everything, you know, if we did something wrong that's one thing, but he's just apologizing because he didn't like America. I think that's the wrong thing to do.
[/INDENT]
Richard Mourdock the GOP candidate for the Senate says pregnancy from rape is "something God intended". Romney had supported him yesterday but today not so much.
God has no control over whether or not anyone gets raped, but he's in complete control whether or not that act of violence results in pregnancy.
Some god! :rolleyes:
God has no control over whether or not anyone gets raped, but he's in complete control whether or not that act of violence results in pregnancy.
Some god! :rolleyes:
Nah, if you ask those guys, she probably did something to deserve it. Like be born with two X chromosomes and live at least til the onset of puberty.
That's too reasonable, it won't play.
The best article I've read about abortion and rape in, well, ever.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/frum-abortion-reality/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I agree.
from the article:
Abortion is a product of poverty and maternal distress.
A woman who enjoys the most emotional and financial security and who has chosen the timing of her pregnancy will not choose abortion, even when abortion laws are liberal. A woman who is dominated, who is poor and who fears bearing the child is likely to find an abortion, even where abortion is restricted, as it was across the United States before 1965.
Regarding Mourdock's statements, I don't agree with his position about abortion and rape. And his "apology" was the standard "I am sorry if you (the media) misunderstood me" non-apology, but I do respect the rest of his remarks where he said that he could not apologize for speaking from his heart, as that would make him contrary to his faith. I can respect that. It wasn't proselytizing, it wasn't bullshit, it was honest. That I respect. I don't agree with the policy challenge it leads to, but to see someone speaking honestly and candidly is very refreshing.
We've got another one.
This guy seems stupid enough to not belie the thread title.
... who is running to take over retiring Rep. Frank Wolf’s seat, had fought against making spousal rape a crime because the woman was “sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie.”
That guy gave up.
But
this guy's been in office more than 20 years. I'm not sure whether "Executive director" is an elected office, though.
“I made a prediction a long time ago and it’s come to pass. I said what we’re gonna do is turn Detroit into an Indian reservation, where we herd all the Indians into the city, build a fence around it and then throw in the blankets and the corn.”
That article shows his history seems to have little regard for minorities, but the they say...
When you know where Patterson’s words are coming from, you understand that the meaning was not benign.
He is the lawyer who represented the [COLOR="Red"]anti-segregationists [/COLOR]in Oakland County, decades ago.
He fought school busing all the way to the Supreme Court, where he eventually won the case.
After that he lobbied for a ‘no busing amendment’ to the United States Constitution.
Wait? What? Anti-segregationists? :confused:
A typo, I assume.
I think they meant to write 'auntie-segregationists', AKA the PTA circa 1966.;)
[LIST]
[*]Formal Merge of PTA and NCCPT
[LIST]
[*]In 1966, the two associations began formal talks about unification and formally merged in 1970.
[*]Despite riots in some areas because of racial tensions, integration proceeded effectively enough to see many local units of the NCCPT merge with local PTA units.
[/LIST]
[/LIST]
https://arkansaspta.org/History_of_PTA.htmlFinally the Republicans get to accuse
a Democrat of trivializing rape!
At a New Mexico House Judiciary Committee hearing last week state Rep. Ken Martinez (D) said "rape is defined in many ways and some of it is just drunken college sex."
Republicans are hammering the state lawmaker over his comments, while Martinez is denying that his remarks were dismissive of the seriousness of rape.
Rep John Carter [R-TX] chairs Homeland Security Appropriations and sits on Defense subcommittees, but he only found out that encryption exists. :rolleyes:
Rep. John Carter: I'm chairman of Homeland Security Appropriations. I serve on Defense and Defense subcommittees. We have all the national defense issues with cyber. And now, sir, on this wonderful committee. So cyber is just pounding me from every direction. And every time I hear something, or something just pops in my head -- because I don't know anything about this stuff. If they can do that to a cell phone why can't they do that to every computer in the country, and nobody can get into it? If that's the case, then that's the solution to the invaders from around the world who are trying to get in here. [Smug grin]
FBI Director Comey: [Chuckle and gives smug, knowing grin]
Carter: Then if that gets to be the wall, the stone wall, and even the law can't penetrate it, then aren't we creating an instrument [that] is the perfect tool for lawlessness. This is a very interesting conundrum that's developing in the law. If they, at their own will at Microsoft can put something in a computer -- or at Apple -- can put something in that computer [points on a smartphone], which it is, to where nobody but that owner can open it, then why can't they put it in the big giant super computers, that nobody but that owner can open it. And everything gets locked away secretly. And that sounds like a solution to this great cyber attack problem, but in turn it allows those who would do us harm [chuckles] to have a tool to do a great deal of harm where law enforcement can't reach them. This is a problem that's gotta be solved.
Easiest option is Denial. Pretend that it doesn't. We all know humans are naturally wired for Denial. it's a great self-defence mechanism. Deny the problem exists, deny abortion is the only solution.
Unfortunately denial does not exist until one is first told what to believe. A majority knew smoking cigarettes increase health. Then got 'Rush Limbaugh' angry a the Surgeon General for reporting that cigarettes kill. A majority knew Saddam had WMDs because a dumb president said so. Then got angy when, for example, the Cellar was full of posts that said why that did not exist.
A majority foolishly plug their computer into a surge protector. When that protector does not claim to protect a computer from destructive surges, when it can make surge damage easier, and when it can even create a fire. A majority deny only because the first thing they were told was bogus. And because they forget that adults need relevant reasons and numbers for why it should be believed.
A friend so loved calling the most religious. They would automatically believe the first thing he told them. And so he made good money promoting telephone scams. His best customers were the most religious.
Shhhhh... We've secretly replaced his usual political system whipping boy with Carly Fiorina his usual business school whipping girl, let's see if he notices. [I]Shhhhh... We've secretly replaced his usual political system whipping boy with Carly Fiorina
So she has been castrated?
as leaders go, I'd consider him as incompetent as the best of them.
Speaking of incompetence... Has everyone been to
CarlyFiorina.orgThat's impressive. The only incompetence I see there is the failure of her digital media communications director's failure to lock up that domain name.
I'll let tw speak to over-all incompetence. I just found it really amusing that she or her people missed a pretty basic step.
The GOP cracks me up sometimes. Here's a page full of laffs for you:
The Stranger Obtains a Secret Transcript of the Koch Brothers’ Auditioning of Republican Candidates
Here's a taste:
The Koch brothers, who will spend almost $900 million on this presidential campaign, have been auditioning Republican candidates in Dana Point, California.
Lights up on SCOTT WALKER, TED CRUZ, RAND PAUL, MARCO RUBIO, and JEB BUSH huddled under one side of a large proscenium. They are auditioning for the role of Republican Jesus Christ Superstar. CHARLES and DAVID KOCH, who plan to spend $889 million on this election, approach the lectern. The crowd falls silent as the Koch brothers proceed to unzip their people suits and fuse into a two-headed jar of marshmallow fluff, their natural form.
Koch Bros: Good evening and welcome to this secretive billionaire summit. We all know why we're here: to witness five free-market gladiators battling it out for a chance to win a fraction of our inherited wealth. How about wealth, huh?
The crowd goes wild.
Koch Bros: First up will be Señor Rubio from Florida.
The Koch brothers take a seat on a throne made of Doritos.
Marco Rubio: It's Senator Rubio. Not Señor.
The whole short article is quite funny. :nuts:
That would be pretty funny if it weren't true.
I'll let tw speak to over-all incompetence. I just found it really amusing that she or her people missed a pretty basic step.
Just wait for the match up of Carley Fiorena and Hillary...
There will be only one over-arching debate issue:
This Is How Much Hillary Clinton’s Pantsuit Costs
Time - David Kaiser - 5/28/15
Dressing like a presidential hopeful is not cheap
As Hillary Clinton graces stage after stage during her 2016 presidential campaign,
she’s sure to be wearing her signature look: the pantsuit.<snip>
Maybe if she answered question by the press, they would have something else to write about.
Patience, Grasshopper. Good things come for those who wait.
Nothing good will come from her. She's a deceitful, power-hungry egomaniac. This is all about winning and power - nothing to do with really wanting to lead.
Right now she is running like an incumbent.
Nothing good will come from her. She's a deceitful, power-hungry egomaniac. This is all about winning and power - nothing to do with really wanting to lead.
And this makes her different from every other candidate how?
Nothing good will come from her. She's a deceitful, power-hungry egomaniac. This is all about winning and power - nothing to do with really wanting to lead.
And this makes her different from every other candidate how?
She's really good at it.
Wull... it's one of those things that's funny but not really, right?
The Clinton Foundation has raised two BILLION dollars. It's sort of a rejection of the Audacity of Hope, right? Eventually Hope isn't going to be President and this money will be worth something to whomever gave it. And in the meantime, whatever you wanted, Hope wasn't getting it for you and so you went to Cash.
I'm not voting* - I would be as likely to vote for Hills, depending on how things shake out, but you can't get much more transparent than this is just a fuckin' shell game and caring about it is kind of a losing proposition. Cast a vote for Cash. The foreign policy goes to the highest bidder and whatever we lead the country to, we will call it success. At least we know how it will operate. Game on.
*[COLOR="White"]Mom's answer to my "I'm not voting" was "I raised you wrong". What makes people say such things to their family? Politics. Have a nice day.[/COLOR]
If Hillary becomes president (and it follows, as the vote was bestowed first upon the black man and then women) you will hear thousands upon thousands of white males screaming and wailing over what they will perceive as the loss of some sort of Power of the Penis. And I will laugh and laugh!
Everyone will know that it's really Bill who's calling the shots from his Cabinet position as Intern Czar.
She's a deceitful, power-hungry egomaniac. This is all about winning and power - nothing to do with really wanting to lead.
And this makes her different from every other candidate how?
"She"
Yeah, hi. I've been sporadically lurking recently. Very busy these days.
Nope, I don't even drink.
ha! And he's back with a zing :P
Hi HM:) How's tricks?*
* Northern to normal English translation: How are things?
Pretty good, pretty good. Not much to report. Working, sleeping, watching TV, uncleing when I can.
I am highly amused by the current candidates declaring that the Church should keep it's nose out of Government, now that the Pope has made a statement against climate change.
I hope it comes back to highlight their hypocrisy later on in the campaigns.
The OP is interesting. My own 2 cents:
1st cent:
Thinking intelligently requires intelligence...
But nobody owns the exclusive rights for stupid.
How much you are capable of thinking of something is not alone a good indicator for how much you'll be willing or inclined to think about it. Which is why you can have people who's plans and political strategies are very intelligent, and yet their beliefs and motivations behind their political agendas are under very little scrutiny.
2nd cent:
It is all too often that we define intelligence as an attribute for how much do people think like we do, not only because it compliments us, but because it's a stratagy to reaffirm our beliefs, generating our own social echo chambers in which what we say is confirmed by having the approval and agreement of those we view as intelligent... And we view them as such because we approve and agree with what they have to say).
When it comes to politics, ideology and social issues, where the questions and the various stances about them are often very long lasting, the chance that your political stance is a direct result of your intelligence or a demonstration for how intelligent you are is a very slim chance, simply because chances are, every side in the debate has had a very long time for a lot of people to invest a lot more thought and processing time then you have (Though often with an inverse correlation to how objective they are on the matter), including rationals for both your own stance and your opposition's. If someone is unintelligent because they disagree with you on such a matter, consider the likelihood that you might have generated a false feedback loop reaffirming your beliefs through a rather unintelligent understanding of intelligence (Please reference the 1st cent for a pat on the back).
ha! And he's back with a zing :P
Hi HM:) How's tricks?*
* Northern to normal English translation: How are things?
We have how's tricks? here in this country. Popular in the early 20th C. Probably brought over from Britain. Now that I think about it all the times I heard it used in black and white movies the speaker had some sort of brogue, but that may have just been that weird movie accent that was popular.