Akin Hatred

I am usually a “glass half full” type, not quite full blown Pollyanna but always preferring to go down fighting with whatever positives I can grab as a weapon. As with most, I was pretty jazzed about the Ryan pick. Knowing that even with the laundry list in hand cataloging all the bad news, the dregs at which this president has brought us, the combination of those minions who would never abandon him, the trifecta of the MSM/Hollywood/adademia, and their usual adept ability to turn any argument around and point it at our shortcomings ; e.g. the war on women, intolerance or racism, all these allies lining up behind him, that Obama would still be formidable and the favorite.

The task at hand was fairly easy, redirect everything to the economy, all questions, all misdirects, all inquiries need to brought right back there. $16 trillion in debt, 4 straight years of $1 trillion deficits, 8.3% unemployment, a ruined credit rating, poverty rates unprecedented, 100 million plus on public assistance, a total abdication to even discuss budgets, tax reform or out of control spending. Obamacare? Here are the economic effects of implementing it. Quantitive easing? more economic bad news. The Obama effect on gas prices/food/utility prices, the cost of living, all economic minuses in the ledger of individual families.

A battle plan with an experienced general (Ryan) at the lead, it almost seemed winnable, until Mister ,”Women have the ability to will a pregnancy away” came along, now the whole debate has changed. We have relinquished the high ground and the offensive and find ourselves on our heels.

Todd Akin has overnight turned himself into the most hated man in America and whatever concessions I was willing to offer him regarding his character has since evaporated. Now I not only want him buried, I want him out of the House the next time he is up for re election, he is beyond contemptable, hiding behind the “will of the people” and “It’s not about me”, yes it is you selfish prick. Here is what Ann said last night:

The solution of a write in campaign is appealing, hardly satisfactory to having Akin withdraw there by giving another candidate the full faith and credit of the party along with a portion of its ever increasing coffers. Write in’s have their own set of headaches and obstacles, not ideal but given McCaskil’s unfavorability ratings, maybe feasible. But Ann is right in that we have officially ceded the initiative and will be dragged into discussing this (and not the economy) for the next few months.

I read somewhere yesterday that he has officially one more deadline to withdraw without getting sent to the principal’s office, more pressure needs to be brought to bare.

Another site which I frequent is iowntheworld, a terrific blog. This morning I ruffled a few feathers over there responding to a comment whereby advice was given that since Akin apologized and that the left is worse in their sins that we need to rally around Akin, support him, and make sure that he wins. My comment was essentially,”Are you insane? aside from the fact that he has zero chance of winning, no money, no endorsements and no backing from anyone except his opponent, why on earth would you want to reward this douche bag with a seat on the Senate? You should do everything in your power to punish him, get him out of Congress for good. He is not a positive reflection of our party, he is neanderthal is his scientific understandings, he is selfish, he has done irreparable damage to our ability to regain power, and he continues to dig in his heels, lie to himself and his constituents by maintaining that this is not about him. I say cast him out of the tribe and make him wonder the earth, alone, forever”.

Too harsh?

Comments are closed.

  1. ilovecress

    You’re totally correct – you watch the dem strategy now. Forget Romney. Link Ryan with Akin. repeat the phrase ‘more extreme positions’ ‘the rapist’s baby’ ‘personhood’.

    And I thought we were going to talk about the economy. Akin’s just f*cked it up.

    Thumb up 2

  2. Thrill

    Speaking as a resident of Missouri: Fuck that guy. Fuck that ignorant motherfucker right up his ass. Fuck him for staying in the race and turning a sure win into a sure loss and saving Obamacare.

    I’m just letting the anger consume me over here.

    Thumb up 5

  3. Thrill

    I was due to check-in and wanted to make it count.

    Again though: that guy Akin needs to get sodomized with a chainsaw and impregnated with sea urchins.

    Thumb up 2

  4. richtaylor365 *

    Too harsh?

    I guess not.

    Hey Thrill, when you get a few minutes, send me a PM letting me know what’s going on in your life. you know I miss you bro.

    Thumb up 1

  5. CM

    Just to be clear, were Romney and Ryan just unhappy about the bogus medical claim? Akin clearly doesn’t think he’s really done much wrong here other than use the wrong wording (‘legitimate’ was really meant to be ‘forcible’ which was part of Ryan and Akin’s attempt to redefine rape – I didn’t think that was disputed). I saw Ryan shaking his head in disbelief at Akin but I’m not sure what he found so offensive. I’m trying to work out exactly where the common ground between Ryan, Romney and Akin ends, and Akin’s ‘unacceptability’ begins.

    Thumb up 0

  6. richtaylor365 *

    The “common ” ground is that all 3 are pro life.

    Romney believes in abortion under circumstances or rape, incest or when the life of the mother is threatened.
    Ryan’s abortion criteria is limited only to when the life of the mother is threatened., although he has made it abundantly clear that Romney is at the head of the ticket , Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration.
    Akin believes in the “magic uterus” theory, that a woman has the power to will a pregnancy away, neither Ryan nor Romney (or anyone else on the planet for that matter) subscribe to such nonsense.

    I know you are just chomping at the bit to make something out of “forcible rape”, sorry, but Ryan has already clarified that, he has said that rape is rape, end of story.

    Thumb up 4

  7. CM

    Ah right, yes, because all I do is take everything out of context. Right, I get you. Nice.
    As soon as I heard ‘legitimate’ I went seaching and found the context (i.e. found that what he meant to say was ‘forcible’, and how that relates to the bill they tried to get passed). I don’t agree with any of them, I was trying to understand it all on their terms. It appears that the bogus medical claim is what Ryan was appalled at. To me Ryan’s position would be slightly more palatable to me if the medical claim wasn’t bogus.
    The controversy just underscores to me how ridiculous it is that men feel they have a right to decide what women do with their bodies. If the roles were reversed I’m 100% sure women wouldn’t get nearly as far trying to dictate what men should be doing with theirs.

    Thumb up 1

  8. richtaylor365 *

    Ah right, yes, because all I do is take everything out of context. Right, I get you. Nice.

    That’s not what I said. It is obvious that you relish your role here of being the counter weight, the counter argument and the reeler in of everything “right wing”, no problem, there are times that you do that well. It was also obvious where you were going with “legitimate/forcible” inquiry, I was just heading you off at the pass.

    Thumb up 5

  9. Mississippi Yankee

    Ah right, yes, because all I do is take everything out of context. Right

    It appears that the bogus medical claim is what Ryan was appalled at.

    Appears to whom? You Agent Provocateur? Did you discover that you may have soiled yourself (@10:38) and by redirecting the focus towards a Roe-v-Wade issue you may ‘divide and conquer’?

    If nothing else CM, you are predictable.

    Thumb up 2

  10. richtaylor365 *

    The controversy just underscores to me how ridiculous it is that men feel they have a right to decide what women do with their bodies.

    How do you reconcile that narrative with the fact that the majority of Americans are pro life and that many of these are women?

    Thumb up 1

  11. Xetrov

    If the roles were reversed I’m 100% sure women wouldn’t get nearly as far trying to dictate what men should be doing with theirs.

    And here I thought you were married. ;-) It’s quite clear to me that I have no say in what my body does or does not do (yard work, laundry, etc.)

    Thumb up 0

  12. CM

    That’s not what I said. It is obvious that you relish your role here of being the counter weight, the counter argument and the reeler in of everything “right wing”, no problem, there are times that you do that well. It was also obvious where you were going with “legitimate/forcible” inquiry, I was just heading you off at the pass.

    Well you got it utterly wrong. I pre-emptively added the legitimate/forcible part IN ORDER to make it clear I understood. Yet still……sheesh man.

    Appears to whom? You Agent Provocateur? Did you discover that you may have soiled yourself (@10:38) and by redirecting the focus towards a Roe-v-Wade issue you may ‘divide and conquer’?

    Soiled myself? How? Nothing even remotely controversial about my enquiry at 10.38pm. The fact that I’m even asking is unsurprisingly offensive to some though. They should probably toughen up a bit.

    If nothing else CM, you are predictable.

    Right back at you.

    How do you reconcile that narrative with the fact that the majority of Americans are pro life and that many of these are women?

    There is nothing to reconcile. It’s just my opinion.
    The poll you linked to has with “23 percent saying it should be illegal in all circumstances, 22 percent saying it should be legal under any circumstances, and 53 percent saying it should be legal only under certain circumstances”. So those at the extreme (no circumstances, any circumstances) are far outweighed by “certain circumstances”. All depends on what those are to reach any meaningful conclusions. Does “pro-life” mean “no circumstances” or “certain circumstances”?
    It’s also one thing to hold a strong personal view, it’s quite another to try to impose that view on others.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    And here I thought you were married. ;-) It’s quite clear to me that I have no say in what my body does or does not do (yard work, laundry, etc.)

    Hahaha, nice. I hear ya.

    Thumb up 0

  14. hist_ed

    The controversy just underscores to me how ridiculous it is that men feel they have a right to decide what women do with their bodies. If the roles were reversed I’m 100% sure women wouldn’t get nearly as far trying to dictate what men should be doing with theirs.

    This is just an idiotic argument. It betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of democracy. Under your theory, why are women the only group that get exclusive power over a slice of the law? Why the hell do non-Muslims get a say in how Muslim fathers treat their daughters? If 51% of men got together and voted that all prostrate screenings should be free of charge does that mean that women should have no say? Why don’t we have gender specific votes on drug laws? If 51% of men want heroin to be legal and only 40% of women, should it be legal for men only (what the hell are those women doing telling men what to so with their bodies?). Should we exclude all women doctors from discussion of prostates, testicular cancer and erectile disfunction?

    Men and women get equal say in the law because they are both, equally, citizens of this country. Pretty sure it works that way down where you are, too.

    Thumb up 4

  15. hist_ed

    This reminded me of Newt’s amazing biology lesson in the 1990s. Women can’t serve in combat because they get monthly infections or seomting like that.

    Thumb up 0

  16. CM

    It betrays a misunderstanding of the nature of democracy.

    Democracy is irrelevant. Again, it’s a personal opinion.

    Under your theory, why are women the only group that get exclusive power over a slice of the law?

    I said I find it ridiculous that men feel they have a right to decide what women do with their bodies. I didn’t say that only women should vote on whether abortion is legal. My opinion is that I’ve as much right to force a women to have an abortion as I have to say she can’t have one.

    Men and women get equal say in the law because they are both, equally, citizens of this country. Pretty sure it works that way down where you are, too.

    Yes it does. So?

    This reminded me of Newt’s amazing biology lesson in the 1990s. Women can’t serve in combat because they get monthly infections or seomting like that.

    This reminds of the joke:
    Q: What colour is April?
    A: Norway.

    Thumb up 1

  17. CM

    …neither Ryan nor Romney (or anyone else on the planet for that matter) subscribe to such nonsense.

    John C Willke:

    “To get and stay pregnant a woman’s body must produce a very sophisticated mix of hormones. Hormone production is controlled by a part of the brain that is easily influenced by emotions. There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape. This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.”

    Willke is not, as one might expect, some obscure quack, far, far away from the center of Republican and Christianist politics. He is, the LA Times notes, the founder and president of the International Right to Life Federation, president of the Life Issues Institute, and a former president of National Right to Life, the oldest and largest pro-life group in the country. He was president from 1980 to 1983 and then from 1984 to 1990.

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/akin-is-the-christianist-mainstream.html

    Romney on Willke in 2007:

    ”I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President.”

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/08/22/is-this-man-mitt-romneys-reverend-jeremiah-wright/

    Yeah yeah, he can “accept his support without agreeing with his opinions”. But if Obama can be judged on the basis that he ‘paled about with terrorists’ 20 years ago, then Romney can’t dissassociate himself from this nutjob he embraced even more recently. Especially when he selects a VP who essentially sings from the same song-sheet.

    If you are pro-life, i.e. if you hold that a newly fertilized egg just attached to the uterus has all the constitutional rights of an adult or a newborn, then an exception for rape makes no sense.

    I know you are just chomping at the bit to make something out of “forcible rape”, sorry, but Ryan has already clarified that, he has said that rape is rape, end of story.

    Right, and Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped. He’s just clarified that he doesn’t care what flavour of rape it is. Which is just despicable, in my opinion. But that’s the stupidity of fundamentalism for you. In order to be consistent, you have to take extreme positions.

    Thumb up 2

  18. balthazar

    WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT THEIR VIEWS ON ABORTION ARE!!!

    They can do DICK SQUAT about it. The only thing they could POSSIBLY do is nominate a Sup that would be pro life. Even then its unlikely that Roe v Wade would be overturned.

    Its fucking distraction that is all.

    Thumb up 6

  19. Section8

    CM from your link.

    In it, a younger Ryan denounces a women’s health provision that was included in a bill to ban “partial-birth” abortion. Exceptions to the ban, he argues, would make it “meaningless”:

    So he’s against partial birth abortions in this example that you linked to. So what? That decision when to abort could be made well before it gets to this point. At some point you are butchering a kid, and at some point it’s simply stopping potential life. Apparently he saw loopholes in the provision, probably because there were. Anyhow, I see you cherry picked the narriative as usual and then went on to spin it to Akin=Ryan.

    It’s almost unfair that Todd Akin is the new national symbol of anti-abortion extremism; compared to Ryan, he’s almost a squish. Akin received a 90 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee during one of his six terms. Ryan has maintained a 100 percent rating throughout the same period.

    Again, CM has no interest in “understanding” anything, He is predisposed to his leftist views, and has no intention of doing anything other than promote his leftist ideas, which again is fine, but please beware any readers who pass by that this guy is a habitual liar who can’t even be honest or respectful enough to the readers here to just state that he’s a leftist ideologue. He will spin any topic to make it appear as though the leftist idea is always “objective”, while accusing everyone else of the wrongness of being an ideologue.

    Thumb up 4

  20. richtaylor365 *

    OK, so 3 people believe the nonsense, Akin, Sullivan, and you, nice set of friends you have there. I won’t include Wilke in that list because even he does not believe in the magic uterus theory, that all you have to do post rape is to squeeze your legs together, light some incense, think happy thoughts and concentrate, them presto chango, no baby, no muss no fuss.

    Its fucking distraction that is all.

    But it’s all they got, run away from your shitty record like your hair is on fire, then keep hammering ,”Yes, we suck dick, but those guys are worse, trust us”.

    Thumb up 3

  21. salinger

    The draft of the GOP platform for the upcoming convention calls for a constitutional amendment banning ALL abortion. It calls not just for a “human life amendment to the Constitution” but also for legislation “to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.” That would effectively erase any right women have to make their own decisions about their reproductive lives and health – and, depending on how lawmakers phrase the proposed amendment, could threaten even birth control.

    The way I see it – either the Republicans are playing a cynical game of grab the vote from the pro lifers and have no intention of ever doing anything about it – or they really do have this as a goal.

    Personally – I have always thought that if you are against abortion – don’t have one.

    Thumb up 1

  22. Iconoclast

    The whole abortion issue boils down to the fundamental question: Do not-yet-born human beings have rights? Yes or no?

    And this usually leads to the greater question: Where do “rights” come from?

    If these questions cannot be resolved, then it seems unlikely that the issue itself will ever be resolved…

    If such is the case, then any discussion of abortion is nothing but a distraction — we need to focus on the economy, the debt, Obamacare, etc.

    I submit that if we go over the precipice, the issue of abortion will be beyond irrelevant.

    Thumb up 4

  23. Dave D

    Salinger:

    Can I use that argument for someone about to be murdered, too?

    “Don’t do it! I’m against murder!”

    Think that might stop them?

    Or, better yet: I want to kill someone and state just before pulling the trigger “I don’t believe murder is wrong!”. Think that will assuage my guilt in anyones eyes?

    Seems just as silly to us pro-life folk wrt murdering the unborn.

    Icon:

    Agree totally. Abortion is just another distraction and won’t matter in the least after 4+ more years of 1.5 trillion dollar defecits…….

    Thumb up 3

  24. Xetrov

    Could someone please shoot the one who came up with the word “distraction”?

    Stop distracting us from the important issues!

    Thumb up 3

  25. CM

    “Important issues” = issues WE want to talk about. ;-)
    Romney doesn’t want to talk about it because they court people like Willke for endorsements.

    WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT THEIR VIEWS ON ABORTION ARE!!!

    Lots of people.

    So he’s against partial birth abortions in this example that you linked to. So what?

    Did I even argue about that?
    No. I only quoted the apparent fact from that piece.

    Anyhow, I see you cherry picked the narriative as usual and then went on to spin it to Akin=Ryan.

    1. You were the one who has picked up something out of the piece I linked to and pretended that I was making that argument. Dishonest.
    2. I straight-out asked what the actual differences were between Akin and Ryan (and Romney). Romney, as usual, seems to change his position depending on the time of the election cycle. Ryan and Akin are pretty much indistinguishable it seems. It appears the only issue Ryan has with what Akin said was the use of the medical nonsense (which clearly he did not make on the spot as Willke – and no doubt others – clearly believe this shit).
    So fail and fail.

    OK, so 3 people believe the nonsense, Akin, Sullivan, and you, nice set of friends you have there.

    Believe what nonsense? The medical nonsense? Um no, I think of those three it’s pretty clear only one does.

    I won’t include Wilke in that list because even he does not believe in the magic uterus theory, that all you have to do post rape is to squeeze your legs together, light some incense, think happy thoughts and concentrate, them presto chango, no baby, no muss no fuss.

    Pretend away.

    Representative Todd Akin’s assertion that women who are victims of “legitimate rape” rarely get pregnant provoked outrage across the political spectrum, but the views he articulated are far from new in anti-abortion circles.

    Bryan Fischer, director of issue analysis for the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, defended Mr. Akin on his program “Focal Point,” citing “John Willke, who is an M.D. by the way — a lot of these ignoramuses on Twitter are not.”

    Mr. Fischer concluded: “In other words, ladies and gentleman, Todd Akin was exactly right.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/us/politics/rape-assertions-are-dismissed-by-health-experts.html

    This would seem to be a perfect example of throwing someone under a bus for bringing to light beliefs that people would rather be hidden away in election year.

    Personally – I have always thought that if you are against abortion – don’t have one.

    That’s the view I hold too.

    That people find themselves arguing that raped women should be denied abortions, and that women can be left to die by hosptials who don’t want to perform abortions to save the women’s life, are perfect examples of where fundamentalism gets you.

    Thumb up 0

  26. Dave D

    If you guys REALLY think that abortion is a key issue in this campaign compared to the 10+ trillion dollars in extra defecit/debt we are talking about, then you are very distractable!

    Abortion ain’t goin’ anywhere, folks.

    Thumb up 3

  27. CM

    I think it’s possible to discuss more than one issue. There’s still well over two months to go.
    This ‘issue’ isn’t just about abortion either. It’s about rape and healthcare and people putting up any old crap to justify their fundamentalism. It’s another example of Romney being all over the place too (so it’s part of the trust issue) – it’s another area when Romney is trying to have it both ways. He supported the personhood amendment in 2007. At the Huckabee faith forum in 2011, Romney said he agreed with the statement that life was formed at conception and that he would sign a personhood amendment if it hit his desk. So he’s pro-choice, pro-life, for a personhood amendment, for pushing this back to the states, and for legislating this at the federal level.

    Thumb up 1

  28. ilovecress

    Dave D – It’s pre election. What’s important for the country, and what’s important in the campaign are two totally different things. Unfortunately what’s important to the country gets a back seat in teh discourse for a bit, while we all talk about the definition of rape, income tax returns, college papers, and if plumbers built bridges.

    Thumb up 2

  29. richtaylor365 *

    It’s about rape

    What about rape? Last time I checked all the interested parties were against rape, has that changed?

    and healthcare

    Both Romney and Ryan are for healthcare, just not Obamacare, too convoluted, too costly and too government centric, they have a better plan.

    putting up any old crap

    You mean “crap” like the magic uterus theory? Yeah, that is pretty lame.

    it’s another area when Romney is trying to have it both ways

    You mean like Obama when he was against Gitmo before he was for it? Like Obama when he was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for it? Like Obama when he was against lobbyist employed in the WH before he was for it? Or, like Obama when he was against gay marriage before he was for it? Only Obama gets to evolve?

    Thumb up 1

  30. ilovecress

    Unfortunately for Romney, this is an issue. Stoked by the Dems to be sure, but it is an issue – and it speaks directly to what CM was saying about the Ryan pick – that he’s ‘extreme’.

    I think most people agree that Akin is extreme. The story is that Akin has the same voting record on abortion as Ryan. Even sponsoring a bill together. Whatever the justification, both are agreed that legislation needs to be put into place to ‘threaten raped women with incarceration if they refuse to give birth to a ten pound rape baby’ – expect to hear more language like that which paints Ryan as the extreme candidate.

    (of course, like I mentioned – extreme is relative. He’s ‘extreme’ to the left, he’s ‘normal’ to the right)

    The interesting thing about this for me, is that it shows up two things about the Ryan pick that I’m not sure helps Romney.

    1. He’s a base energiser. Conservatives love him and liberals hate him. The fight is for the middle ground. I’m not sure Romney needed a base energiser, I think he has that in Obama.
    2. This is a Ryan vs Obama election. By picking Ryan, Romney has edged himself out of the race. While that might make strategic sense in terms of the news cycles he was in throughout August – by taking the backseat he’s not looking very presidential. Tough enough to win that battle against an incumbent – he’s going to have to have some storming debates.

    Thumb up 2

  31. Section8

    1. You were the one who has picked up something out of the piece I linked to and pretended that I was making that argument. Dishonest.

    Not really, you posted your cherry picked fact and embedded narrative form that site. As far as the partial birth which I “cherry picked”, well, that was the main example on the site of his extremism which I’m guessing you aren’t arguing which is great. I’ve seen you post repeatedly on here that Ryan is opposed to abortions in the case of rape. Is that true in all cases, or after a certain period of time like 20 weeks or so that’s much deeper into the pregnancy, because that’s all I’ve found so far. Have you seen something different? Maybe I missed it on one of your links.

    Thumb up 2

  32. Section8

    Oh and for the record:

    I’m fine with abortion and birth control under these conditions:

    1) No one is forced to pay for it via tax dollars
    2) It’s less than 7 months or so. Why 7 months, no particular reason. There has to be a cut off somewhere for late term abortions. At some point that potential kid turns into a kid. Just because it’s playing peek a boo inside the womb doesn’t mean it’s not a life. I know wild and “extreme”
    3) Oh, and I’m also for ripping the heads off of kids two days after they are born as they are still are for all intent and purposes parasites who drain the energy out of their host, and if it’s not the kid you want that’s one less to have to worry about in the adoption pool. I guess I’m not so extreme after all.

    Thumb up 1

  33. CM

    What about rape? Last time I checked all the interested parties were against rape, has that changed?

    Whether rape is justification for abortion is at issue. That involves a discussion of both rape and abortion. When called out on it in election year it seems Akin does a 180 turn on whether “rape is rape”. Are abortions worse than rape? (i.e. you can be against rape, but not so much that you believe the victim should be allowed an abortion).

    You probably don’t agree but it seems to me (and many others) that many of these argument downplay rape (especially the whole ‘were they really raped?’ suggestions, opening up the definition of rape to mean “no means no except if the victim doesn’t physically resist.”).

    Both Romney and Ryan are for healthcare, just not Obamacare, too convoluted, too costly and too government centric, they have a better plan.

    There are specific healthcare aspects to rape and abortion. E.g. allowing hospitals to deny a woman an abortion even if one were needed to save her life, forcing women to have an ultrasound even agasint their wishes, whether abortion services should be excluded from health exchange networks).

    You mean like Obama when he was against Gitmo before he was for it?

    Yes.

    Like Obama when he was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for it?

    Yes.

    Like Obama when he was against lobbyist employed in the WH before he was for it?

    Yes.

    Or, like Obama when he was against gay marriage before he was for it? Only Obama gets to evolve?

    Is that what you really think Romney has done on the issue of abortion?

    Still trying to work out what Akin did that was so wrong……nothing he said was really at odds with the GOP, as evidenced by Ryan being picked as VP, by their platform on abortion, by Romney’s comments about Willkes, by the 170 other Republicans who tried to get a bill through congress that would have redefined rape…..
    Was it that he just brought it to people’s attention?

    Thumb up 1

  34. CM

    Not really, you posted your cherry picked fact and embedded narrative form that site.

    I’m trying to find the differences between Akin and Ryan, and why Ryan was all shaking his head like Akin was being unbelievably ridiculous. I’m struggling to find the differences and the reason why Akin is now the devil. If you can assist, that’d be great. But please don’t pick out something I didn’t claim and say “So what?” as if I did.

    I’ve seen you post repeatedly on here that Ryan is opposed to abortions in the case of rape.

    It’s an issue I’ve been investigating. I certainly did not just simply post repeatedly that he’s opposed to abortions in the case of rape.

    Is that true in all cases, or after a certain period of time like 20 weeks or so that’s much deeper into the pregnancy, because that’s all I’ve found so far. Have you seen something different? Maybe I missed it on one of your links.

    If you can add links (e.g about the 20 week thing) that’d be great.

    Thumb up 0

  35. Section8

    If you can add links (e.g about the 20 week thing) that’d be great.

    Why don’t you just show where it’s true in all cases to back up your original claim?

    He also co-sponsored legislation that would have barred abortions after 20 weeks gestation in the District of Columbia, with no exception for cases of rape or incest.

    Link

    Just show me where he wants to ban it from day one as you have clearly implied, or deliberately mislead, take your pick.

    Right, and Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped. He’s just clarified that he doesn’t care what flavour of rape it is. Which is just despicable, in my opinion. But that’s the stupidity of fundamentalism for you. In order to be consistent, you have to take extreme positions.

    Thumb up 1

  36. CM

    Why don’t you just show where it’s true in all cases to back up your original claim?

    It was Poosh’s claim. I tried to bring what I could find to the table (irrespective of what it showed).

    Just show me where he wants to ban it from day one as you have clearly implied, or deliberately mislead, take your pick.

    That’s the first time I’ve seen a qualification based on gestation. But it’s cherry-picking as it’s overall record and his statements which provide the more accurate picture. It’s also how he scores with the lagrest pro-life and pro-choice groups (with is 100% and 0%). He seems to have consistently pushed to ban abortion, except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life”. But even then, he co-sponsored H.R.358, the bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when it’s necessary to save a woman’s life.
    He believes life begins at conception, which is Day One.

    Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children.

    http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=193837

    How on earth am I being misleading on this?

    Thumb up 0

  37. richtaylor365 *

    Whether rape is justification for abortion is at issue

    Not with the two people running for president, we know where they stand and they both stand on the same side.

    That involves a discussion of both rape and abortion.

    A discussion between who? We know where the candidates stand, no discussion is necessary.

    When called out on it in election year it seems Akin does a 180 turn on whether “rape is rape”.

    How so? Or are you going back to the old canard that using the word “legitimate” somehow lessens the offence?

    You probably don’t agree

    You are correct, one has zero to do with the other.

    There are specific healthcare aspects to rape and abortion. E.g. allowing hospitals to deny a woman an abortion even if one were needed to save her life, forcing women to have an ultrasound even agasint their wishes, whether abortion services should be excluded from health exchange networks).

    Abortion is legal in all 50 states, a Romney presidency will not change that. Regarding that other stuff, the individual states decide, just like The Constitution says it should.

    Is that what you really think Romney has done on the issue of abortion?

    Yes. I have evolved on certain issues over the years and would allow Romney the same courtesy, especially with a complex issue like this.

    Still trying to work out what Akin did that was so wrong

    I (we) have tried to explain that to you, that whole leading a horse to water thingee.

    Thumb up 1

  38. Xetrov

    Xetrov, what are your thoughts on Akin’s comments?

    I think he’s a fricking idiot.

    That being said, I think a LOT of politicians are fricking idiots.

    As far as importance in this election…it should amount to a hill of beans. Roe v Wade isn’t in danger of being overturned anytime soon, and it will never be outlawed at the Federal level with a Constitutional Amendment. This entire debate benefits Obama, and feeds into the “War on Women” that the left has been huffing about for months. The left doesn’t give two shits about Rape, or Bill Clinton wouldn’t be giving Obama the nomination on behalf of the DNC. Because this debate benefits Obama, it will be THE talking point in the media for the next two+ months instead of four years of policies that have completely failed to get this economy going again, and the potential disaster of four more years of Obamanomics.

    Thumb up 1

  39. ilovecress

    I don’t disagree with you Xetrov – but it has to be noted that abortion has been pretty high on the Republicans policy agenda for the past 2 years – so people on the right do seem to want to talk about it as well.

    Thumb up 1

  40. CM

    Not with the two people running for president, we know where they stand and they both stand on the same side.

    I assume you mean they’ll be running on Romney’s current position.

    A discussion between who? We know where the candidates stand, no discussion is necessary.

    People who don’t agree with Ryan and see Romney’s weathervane history on the subject understandably are interested in the issues (including what will happen to Planned Parenthood funding etc). Particularly when they see what other Republicans like Akin believe, and what the GOP platform. I agree with ilovecress’s take above.

    How so? Or are you going back to the old canard that using the word “legitimate” somehow lessens the offence?

    How is “legitimate” and “forcible” not attempting to redefine rape?
    If you’re attempting to redefine rape, then clearly you don’t think “rape is rape”.

    You are correct,

    Anyway, it doesn’t matter. Enough people see this as a legitimate issue, and believe there is a pattern of trying to downplay rape in order to strengthen abortion controls, to make it a legitimate issue for general discussion.

    Abortion is legal in all 50 states, a Romney presidency will not change that. Regarding that other stuff, the individual states decide, just like The Constitution says it should.

    Right. And if the GOP does well enough, changes can be made to that stuff. With a supportive White House. That’s why it’s not just about abortion, but healthcare as well.

    Yes. I have evolved on certain issues over the years and would allow Romney the same courtesy, especially with a complex issue like this.

    You don’t have to allow him the courtesy, there is evidence in the public domain. I now see the link I provided to the quote about Romney on abortion was non-existent. Here is the proper link. it’s long, but that’s because it’s detailed.

    If you don’t want to read the long version of Romney’s record, I’ll give you the short version. In 1993, when he was preparing to run for the U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, he took a poll. The poll told him he’d lose unless he was pro-choice. So he ran as a pro-choicer. In fact, he used the poll to persuade leaders of the Mormon Church that he had to run as a pro-choicer. Then, six years later, when he was living in Utah (a pro-life state) and thinking about running for office there, he repositioned himself as a pro-lifer. Then, when the governorship of Massachusetts opened up in 2002, he repositioned himself as a pro-choicer. Then, as he prepared to seek the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, he repositioned himself as a pro-lifer. At every turn, he has taken the position that looked safest politically.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/08/romney_abortion_and_rape_he_s_a_flip_flopper_not_an_extremist_.html

    That’s no ‘evolution’.

    I (we) have tried to explain that to you, that whole leading a horse to water thingee.

    You implied it was because of the ‘magic uterus theory’. But the ‘magic uterus theory’ is really just a (poor) attempt at supporting evidence. In terms of an actual position, there doesn’t appear to be any difference.
    However from his subsequent interview, Ryan is trying to distance himsefl from Akin on more than just the magic uterus theory. He’s now saying ‘rape is rape’. As opposed to ‘illegimate rape isn’t rape’. At which point did all rape go back to being rape?

    Thumb up 0

  41. blameme

    It sure is good to see you so unbiased CM. Can you point me to all of your unbiased posts on RTFTLC on Obama’s many “weather vane” actions on various and numerous positions.

    Thumb up 4

  42. CM

    Thanks Xetrov, I value your perspective.

    Yeah ilovecress, it’s usually the right who are most interested in talking abortion. They’re also much more likely to make it a voting issue. The Slate piece I just linked to discusses this – year after year more pro-lifers then pro-choicers made their voting decisions based on abortion, until 1990, the year after the Supreme Court came close to over-turning Roe v Wade. That scared pro-choice voters, and many more decided to make abortion an election issue the following year. In 1990 exit polls, the number of pro-choicers who made their voting decisions based on abortion exceeded the number of pro-lifers who did so. So the pro-choice voters only come out when it matters.

    Ultimately this time it might not matter, as long as Romney and Ryan keep repeating that they’re not going to do anything to advance a pro-life agenda.

    I don’t think this issue will last until the election. I doubt it’ll last another week. Maybe the Convention will keep it going a little bit.

    Thumb up 1

  43. CM

    It sure is good to see you so unbiased CM. Can you point me to all of your unbiased posts on RTFTLC on Obama’s many “weather vane” actions on various and numerous positions.

    Sure:

    You mean like Obama when he was against Gitmo before he was for it?

    Yes.

    Like Obama when he was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for it?

    Yes.

    Like Obama when he was against lobbyist employed in the WH before he was for it?

    Yes.

    I think Obama is a pragmatist above all else (including socialism and even being a Muslim).

    Thumb up 0

  44. Section8

    It was Poosh’s claim. I tried to bring what I could find to the table (irrespective of what it showed).

    Oh ok, you didn’t go into your own narrative and hysterics. I guess that was someone else in this thread posting as you with your name then.

    That’s the first time I’ve seen a qualification based on gestation. But it’s cherry-picking as it’s overall record and his statements which provide the more accurate picture. It’s also how he scores with the lagrest pro-life and pro-choice groups (with is 100% and 0%). He seems to have consistently pushed to ban abortion, except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life”. But even then, he co-sponsored H.R.358, the bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when it’s necessary to save a woman’s life.
    He believes life begins at conception, which is Day One.

    Cherry picking? You asked for the fricken link. Jesus Christ, it’s bad enough we have to repeat ourselves ten thousand times to explain something to you, now you don’t understand your own posts? You’ve repeated yourself and added how disgusted you were regarding the no way now how can you ever get an abortion rape situation that Ryan supposedly supports. I simply asked based on what laws he’s proposed or supported that would back up your claim. As far as the hospital one, I’ll check it out tomorrow. My guess is there is more to this like federal funding which I wouldn’t be surprised you’ve left out. Not only that, from what you posted it would be the HOSPITAL staff’s choice. As far as he believes life begins at conception, so what, I think pot addicts are losers, but I don’t think they should go to jail, but I guess if you only pick what you want you could say I wan’t them to be shot.

    Again, show me where he’s going to make it illegal for abortion regarding rape. Not who funds who, or which hospitals have the OPTION to decide how they run their hospital, but actually ban/make illegal/prohibit. From day one.

    Now on a personal note, I don’t even agree with some of the limitations he’s proposed where there are actual facts, but you’ve decided to go beyond and post your narratives as fact you ideologue you.

    Thumb up 2

  45. richtaylor365 *

    I assume you mean they’ll be running on Romney’s current position.

    I meant what I said, that both presidential candidates (Obama and Romney) believe that abortion is justified under circumstances of rape

    People who don’t agree with Ryan and see Romney’s weathervane history on the subject

    Those people should take Ryan at his word, that a Romney administration is not that same thing as a Ryan administration, and that Ryan will defer to his boss on this issue.

    How is “legitimate” and “forcible” not attempting to redefine rape?

    I knew you wanted to go “there”, your earlier feigned protestations notwithstanding. It is really very simple, there already exists different kinds of rape. No doubt you have heard of statutory rape? Statutory rape differs from “forcible” rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor is legally incapable of giving consent to the act, but in many instances statutory rape is a mine field because older minors have been deemed capable of consent. Factor in that in some states having sex with girls as old as seventeen is considered statutory rape solely on the age of the boy having sex with her ( both 17 would not constitute rape).

    Right. And if the GOP does well enough, changes can be made to that stuff. With a supportive White House. That’s why it’s not just about abortion, but healthcare as well.

    The individual states decide, regardless of who is in the WH, same sex marriage laws and their track records wrt getting accepted or denied in the individual states when put before the people are a perfect example.

    You don’t have to allow him the courtesy, there is evidence in the public domain

    .

    Just like many other politicians, including Obama, what, dems get to bounce all over the place but if a republican changes his mind on an issue it’s earth shattering?

    You implied it was because of the ‘magic uterus theory’. But the ‘magic uterus theory’ is really just a (poor) attempt at supporting evidence. In terms of an actual position, there doesn’t appear to be any difference.

    There is a mountain of difference. Have you ever heard either Romney or Ryan support the magic uterus theory? Has Ryan ever put forth a position, any position concerning the biological act of conception, or how the act of rape affects the chances of conception? They are both prolife, there is where the similarities end.

    Thumb up 2

  46. Xetrov

    I don’t disagree with you Xetrov – but it has to be noted that abortion has been pretty high on the Republicans policy agenda for the past 2 years – so people on the right do seem to want to talk about it as well.

    I’d disagree. I haven’t seen any evidence of it being high on the Republican agenda any more than previous to the last two years, and I’ve paid pretty close attention to politics for a long time. All polls that I’ve seen where people express their top voting issue by and large do not include abortion as the top issue for any sizeable portion of the populace on either side of the isle.

    Thumb up 5

  47. ilovecress

    Ah – sorry, I mean Republican politicians. On the lefty liberal sites it’s often mentioned that there has been a huge increase in abortion focused bills since 2010 . I know it’s lefty liberal, so I’ll check it.

    Thumb up 0

  48. Iconoclast

    I think Obama is a pragmatist above all else…

    Right. It’s okay to flip-flop when you’re a Democrat/Leftist/Socialist, that’s just being “pragmatic”.

    But when a Repulican does it? Well, then it’s obviously a “problem”:

    The problem with Romney isn’t that he keeps changing his mind. The problem is that he keeps changing his story.

    When a Repuiblican changes his mind, he’s “really” just “changing his story”.

    When a Democrat does it, he’s “evolving”.

    No double-standard here, folks, move along, just another “objective” observation…

    Oh, and your link to a Slate article is bollixed, and it’s pretty common knowledge that Slate is very much a left-wing outfit. Can the article show beyond reasonable doubt what it’s claiming? I’m sure it can when it’s preaching to the Leftist choir…

    Thumb up 7

  49. ilovecress

    So – my bad I think. While there have been more abortion bills in the house since the Reps took over – it’s not by a huge margin (67 for the 112th compared to 51 for the 111th).

    The danger of being on the outside looking in.

    Thumb up 0

  50. CM

    Oh ok, you didn’t go into your own narrative and hysterics. I guess that was someone else in this thread posting as you with your name then.

    Poosh made the ‘original claim’, which I decided to look into. Sorry, I thought that’s what you were referring to.

    Cherry picking? You asked for the fricken link. Jesus Christ, it’s bad enough we have to repeat ourselves ten thousand times to explain something to you, now you don’t understand your own posts?

    WTF? I understood my own post. I asked for the evidence, you provided it. Thanks. I’m still allowed to conclude that that one vote, from what I can gather, it doesn’t seem to reflect his position.

    My guess is there is more to this like federal funding which I wouldn’t be surprised you’ve left out.

    Could be. If so, it’s not deliberate on my part.

    Again, show me where he’s going to make it illegal for abortion regarding rape.

    He’s not. I’m saying there is more to it than that.

    Fixed it for ya.

    Can’t argue with that Xetrov.

    I knew you wanted to go “there”, your earlier feigned protestations notwithstanding.

    I didn’t want to ‘go there’ back then. If I did, I wouldn’t have written what I did. As I’ve already pointed out.

    Just like many other politicians, including Obama, what, dems get to bounce all over the place but if a republican changes his mind on an issue it’s earth shattering?

    So is this an “evolution” or not?

    There is a mountain of difference. Have you ever heard either Romney or Ryan support the magic uterus theory? Has Ryan ever put forth a position, any position concerning the biological act of conception, or how the act of rape affects the chances of conception? They are both prolife, there is where the similarities end.

    If that’s where the “similarities end” then what else, other than the ridiculous medical nonsense Akin threw in there to try and justify his position, differs? (I’m essentially just re-wording the same question).

    I think your response to ‘redefining rape’ was good.

    Thumb up 0

  51. CM

    But when a Repulican does it? Well, then it’s obviously a “problem”:

    It’s a problem if anyone is going to claim otherwise (i.e. that they’ve been consistent, or simply evolved). Obviously the same rules apply to any politician.

    No double-standard here, folks, move along, just another “objective” observation…

    You’re misunderstood. You can’t claim ‘evolution’ if you’ve moved back and forth many times, depending on which way the wind was blowing.

    Oh, and your link to a Slate article is bollixed, and it’s pretty common knowledge that Slate is very much a left-wing outfit. Can the article show beyond reasonable doubt what it’s claiming? I’m sure it can when it’s preaching to the Leftist choir…

    If you keep reading you’ll see the link and my mention of screwing it up.
    Sure, it could all be highly biased. However all the relevant links to the primary evidence at each juncture appear to be there. And if you actually read it, it seems fair. It rules out a lot of Democrat claims.
    But yeah sure, dismiss it, and everything else, on the grounds of where it comes from if you like. Good luck reaching any sort of balanced view doing that though.

    Thumb up 0

  52. richtaylor365 *

    If that’s where the “similarities end” then what else, other than the ridiculous medical nonsense Akin threw in there to try and justify his position, differs?

    Isn’t that enough? There is no such thing as a magic uterus, one capable of willing or nixing conception all by itself, and to think it exists makes you a loon. It would be the same if Akin put forth the opinion that he was against pre marital kissing because you can get pregnant that way, and you come back with ,”Well, they are both pro life, aside from that fact that Ryan does not subscribe to the kissing leads to pregnancy theory, what other differences are there”?

    I hope the dems keep up with this rape meme and someone from the GOP has balls enough to run with the fact that the two Democratic champions of the last 50 years ,Kennedy and Clinton, were both notorious serial rapists. Talk about a war on women, between these two criminals and Teddy, who was complicit in the felonious death of another woman, those dems sure do have a great regard with women, yeah, they know a few things about rape.

    Thumb up 1

  53. Section8

    WTF? I understood my own post. I asked for the evidence, you provided it. Thanks. I’m still allowed to conclude that that one vote, from what I can gather, it doesn’t seem to reflect his position.

    It’s the closest conclusion I could find to even remotely support your claim below, and in this case the page I linked to involved later term pregnancies. I also asked if you had better evidence to support your narrative which I have yet to see. That’s not cherry picking on my part but whatever. If you think it is go with it. I have no desire to take a drive down bizzaro semantic road with you today.

    Me:

    Again, show me where he’s going to make it illegal for abortion regarding rape.

    You:

    He’s not. I’m saying there is more to it than that.

    From your earlier post.

    Right, and Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped. He’s just clarified that he doesn’t care what flavour of rape it is. Which is just despicable, in my opinion. But that’s the stupidity of fundamentalism for you. In order to be consistent, you have to take extreme positions.

    Did you not post this quote? Did the blog fairy add this in with your name on it? If you’re going to lie about your previous quotes, at least lie about ones in other threads that carry over to a current thread so it isn’t so obvious. Thanks.

    Thumb up 3

  54. Iconoclast

    Obviously the same rules apply to any politician.

    Yeah, we’ll see…

    You’re misunderstood. You can’t claim ‘evolution’ if you’ve moved back and forth many times, depending on which way the wind was blowing.

    I, for one, am not claiming “evolution”. Hell, I’m not really “claiming” anything at all — I’m just observing double standards at work.

    You are the one who attaches the “pragmatism” label onto Obama for changing his mind. Well, based on what I have so far read in the Slate article (it is lengthy and my time is limited, but I have read into it a fair distance), I don’t see any real reason why the same label cannot be attached to Romney. After all, how “pragmatic” is it to run for office in a blue state while touting decidedly conservative views? But no, Romney isn’t “pragmatic” apparently, he’s “problematic” in that he keeps “changing his story”. That is the double standard, and I haven’t “misunderstood” anything.

    But yeah sure, dismiss it, and everything else, on the grounds of where it comes from if you like. Good luck reaching any sort of balanced view doing that though.

    Interesting how you jump to the conclusion that I will merely “dismiss” it. No, I simply observe the bias in the source, no need to draw unfounded conclusions from that. As far as “balanced views” go, who is to say that anyone’s view is truly “balanced”? Are you gonna claim with a straight face that yours is? I can admit that mine is not: I consider getting Obama the f*ck out of the White House to be the priority in this election, and personally don’t give a tinker’s damn if his opponent thinks 16-year-old pregnant rape victims who abort should be drawn and quartered. Such a view will never become the law of the land, in all likelihood, provided that the government/country survives the current economic crisis. Like I said before, if the USA goes over the financial cliff, a given person’s views on abortion will amount to bupkis.

    Thumb up 8

  55. blameme

    Sure:

    You mean like Obama when he was against Gitmo before he was for it?

    Yes.

    Like Obama when he was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for it?

    Yes.

    Like Obama when he was against lobbyist employed in the WH before he was for it?

    Yes.

    I think Obama is a pragmatist above all else (including socialism and even being a Muslim).

    Sorry for the late response. So your proof of being unbiased is one snark response in this one thread? I had thought, with you being so unbiased and centered, that you would inundate this thread with multiple links showing your open mindedness. I eagerly await the thread bombing of links galore with Obama weather vane action that you have called out…

    Thumb up 1

  56. Section8

    So – my bad I think. While there have been more abortion bills in the house since the Reps took over – it’s not by a huge margin (67 for the 112th compared to 51 for the 111th).

    The danger of being on the outside looking in.

    At least you’re honest with your posts. We’ve all made assumptions here when posing, and we all will continue to do so from time to time and some of those assumptions will be wrong as that’s just human nature, and sometimes we’ll post stuff that’s just flat out wrong (not directing this incident to you but just in general). Everyone will be guilty of it if they post long enough.

    As for this abortion stuff, from a GOP side, I’d really wish they’d quit focusing on this even with 67 bills along with all the other social conservatism. Just too much other important stuff going on right now. While I think they have backed off quite a bit making this a focus over the years, I’m still waiting to see proof they are serious about a more streamlined government, and so are most people who would vote GOP. We’ll see if they are there yet over the next few months when they state their case.

    Thumb up 0

  57. CM

    I realise this thread is pretty much dead but I did want to reply to these last comments.

    Isn’t that enough? There is no such thing as a magic uterus, one capable of willing or nixing conception all by itself, and to think it exists makes you a loon.

    Probably is enough yeah. I just got the impression Ryan was shaking his head about more than just the magic uterus, but I was probably wrong.
    Akin is an example of the danger of having politicians legislating on these issues when they have a fundamental lack of understanding of how women work.

    I also asked if you had better evidence to support your narrative which I have yet to see.

    His voting record, statements, his scorecard with the main pro-life and pro-choice groups.

    Again, show me where he’s going to make it illegal for abortion regarding rape.

    Again, I never said he’s going to make it illegal. But just because he can’t, doesn’t mean he can’t influence a whole lot of other things. That was what I meant by “there is more to it than that”. E.g. healthcare. Who is making decisions about basic access to healthcare.

    Yeah, we’ll see…

    Well they should be, obviously.

    You are the one who attaches the “pragmatism” label onto Obama for changing his mind.

    I imagine Romney would be a pragmatic President too.
    It’s one thing to shift positions to benefit yourself politically, or to take action you think is best for the country. It’s quite another to pretend you didn’t.

    I don’t see any real reason why the same label cannot be attached to Romney. After all, how “pragmatic” is it to run for office in a blue state while touting decidedly conservative views? But no, Romney isn’t “pragmatic” apparently, he’s “problematic” in that he keeps “changing his story”. That is the double standard, and I haven’t “misunderstood” anything.

    I agree, Romney has been pragmatic. Remember, the issue was weather Romney has ‘evolved’ on abortion (Rich was suggesting he had). But he clearly hasn’t. He’s moved back and forth when it suited, playing both sides as appropriate. As Obama has done on issues. In THIS case Romney has not only moved back and forth, he’s pretended that he hasn’t, as I’m sure you know having read most of that piece. The supposed double-standard was that Obama is ‘allowed’ to evolve, Romney isn’t. But as ‘evolution’ isn’t even at issue here, a claim of double-standards on that falls away.

    Interesting how you jump to the conclusion that I will merely “dismiss” it. No, I simply observe the bias in the source, no need to draw unfounded conclusions from that.

    LOL. It’s the ONLY thing you said about it. You did nothing BUT dismiss it. I simply acknowledged that fact, no conclusions even needed to be reached.

    As far as “balanced views” go, who is to say that anyone’s view is truly “balanced”? Are you gonna claim with a straight face that yours is?

    Surely we at least try don’t we? My point was that if we only read stuff that reinforces what we already believe, how could we expect that we’d form a view on something that was fair, reasonable, somewhat balanced?

    I can admit that mine is not: I consider getting Obama the f*ck out of the White House to be the priority in this election, and personally don’t give a tinker’s damn if his opponent thinks 16-year-old pregnant rape victims who abort should be drawn and quartered.

    That’s absolutely fair enough.

    Such a view will never become the law of the land, in all likelihood, provided that the government/country survives the current economic crisis. Like I said before, if the USA goes over the financial cliff, a given person’s views on abortion will amount to bupkis.

    Totally right.

    So your proof of being unbiased is one snark response in this one thread?

    I gave three clear and unambigious examples of agreement in this VERY THREAD. If that’s not good enough for you, nothing will be.

    Thumb up 0

  58. blameme

    Dude. Really? You agreed to three OBVIOUS examples. But, with your rich history of being unbiased, please point me TO OTHER INSTANCES. You love to link bomb, so please, in this thread, feel free to link many places.

    I, like you, am totally unbiased and am merely awaiting the evidence you can show to prove your position.

    Three yes statements in this thread is bullshit and you know it. Link bomb away with examples of your digs at the dems and Obama in particular. I am begging you, fill this thread with links like you usually do….but with examples of YOUR unbiased pointing out of Obama weather vanes.

    If you fail and only point to this thread…then your bias is true. Don’t run and hide dude. You are better than this and NO ONE loves to ask for evidence MORE THAN YOU.

    So, back it up. Link bomb us with your examples. This is the ONE time on this blog where you have true freedom to post away.

    I actually hope that you can. Seriously.

    Thumb up 1

  59. CM

    Prove that I’m unbiased? LOL. Wow, that’s seriously lame. I don’t see the point. Certainly not sufficiently to waste hours of my time.Particularly as it wouldn’t make any difference if I did (it’s a purely subjective thing anyway – ultimately everyone is biased by what they believe and their experience). So please, by all means, take this as a WIN. You’re clearly salivating about it, it would be harsh (notwithstanding that it’s impossible) for me to even attempt to deny you.
    You’ve certainly moved up the leg-humping rankings though, by providing nothing else in this thread. Winning and humping – that’s a good day by any measure!

    Thumb up 0

  60. CM

    You love to link bomb

    I’d prefer to back up what I say, or what I’m basing my comments on, or not plagerise others if I can help it. More often than not it saves being accused of something (and subsequent sidetracking). As someone who doesn’t adhere to the predominant thinking, I don’t get a ‘pass’ like others constantly do. It comes from years of experience at MW forums. I find it interesting that I get abused for it here, given the opposite was the case there.

    Thumb up 0

  61. blameme

    That is all you have?

    You should remember that I am one of the few that have agreed with you on some things in the past, joked with you and have generally tried to give you the an honest reply whenever we have discussed things.

    But this is utter bullshit. I am not trying to hump or “win.”

    I want you to follow your own damn rules. You make statements of being unbiased…yet you won’t link to a single thread, much less multiple threads, where you call out lefties or Obama.

    Why? I am not salivating over anything. This is a frickin message board and thumbs or down mean jack to me personally.

    So again, follow YOUR OWN PROTOCOL and link some shit up in this thread that proves how unbiased you are when giving our criticisms.

    I, personally , enjoy this blog much more when there are those with opposing views who can state them themselves and prove their point but have open minds and are true to themselves. I don’t care if you are biased. I DO CARE if you claim to be and are not.

    C’mon man. Step up. And again, no saliva involved. I genuinely would love to see some links that prove you are unbiased or step up and admit you are not.

    Either way would make me happy. The status quo of, “I am but a mere clear thinking man with no bias” is disappointing. Own up to it or prove it wrong,

    The internet should be littered with your examples of pointing out Obama’s weather vane antics.

    Thumb up 1

  62. CM

    That is all you have?

    Yep. You’re asking me to “prove” something subjective. You’re not doing it for any other reason but to grandstand. So grandstand away. If you’re going to “call me out” on not backing up what I say, at least pick something provable.

    Ages ago, perhaps 6 months, I started writing a post about things I disagree with Obama (or policies I didn’t agree with) but Kimpost did a far better job before I submitted it, and covered what I was going to cover anyway (and also brought up some stuff I hadn’t yet considered but agreed with), so to avoid a double-up, I agreed with him. I can’t find it now. That would be the closest I’ve got to what you’re asking for.

    The status quo of, “I am but a mere clear thinking man with no bias” is disappointing.

    That’s certainly not what I’ve claimed. I try to approach everything based on it’s merits, playing the ball and not the man. I think it’s important. I don’t always succeed. But I’d rather try than try and simply make everything fit into an ideology. Do you not agree? Is it more important to have a belief system or ideology and determine all issues by that, no matter how weird it gets?

    You should remember that I am one of the few that have agreed with you on some things in the past,

    Do you have evidence of this ;-p

    BTW I’ll look forward to you stepping up to ask others when they make unsupported accusations of others (not just themselves). It happens weekly (although not nearly as much since Alex departed). Whenever I make those requests (put up or shut up) they mostly get ignored (apparently making the accusation is what counts). Perhaps you’ll have more luck now that you’re starting a campaign.

    Thumb up 1

  63. blameme

    I am disappointed, truly, CM.

    I do think you try. Really. I don’t think though that you are as unbiased as you would like to believe. That is mainly my point. You state it is important to not be rigid in your beliefs, but you write, and argue, from a very liberal point of view.

    If you aren’t an ideologue, why is that the case?

    As far as calling others out, they don’t link bomb threads, they assert their own opinions (and call them that) etc. YOU are the one who states he can’t type his own opinion well so he depends on links (which all come from left sites). YOU are the one who comes here asking for multiple links on every topic when the data you seek is easy to find.

    This isn’t a campaign for anything other than you to see how ridiculous it is for you state that you always come from an angle of “open mindedness” but rarely shows it due to always posting from a left point of view.

    You “almost” wrote a post about Obama. I guess that will have to suffice.

    Thumb up 1

  64. JimK

    Quick question: Who was the person who claimed there were mountains of evidence as to his centrist, rather unbiased perspective on various websites and then couldn’t produce any of it?

    That DID happen here, right? We, collectively – even though every single regular here has a slightly-to-very different viewpoint than the others – were accused of being so radically right that we couldn’t see just how moderate this person really is by comparison.

    Right? Am I remembering this right? And not a shred of evidence was presented? I’m remembering that as well.

    Help me out kids. Who was that person?

    Thumb up 6

  65. blameme

    I don’t want to name names JimK so I will just use initials and code instead.

    Fill in the blanks…
    AB_DEFGHIJKL_NOPQRSTUVWXYZ.

    And yes, it did happen. The link bomber failed to deliver when apparently mountains of evidence can easily be found.

    Shocked I tell you!! Shocked!!

    Thumb up 1

  66. Iconoclast

    You did nothing BUT dismiss it.

    That is obviously in error, given that I read it.

    I simply acknowledged that fact…

    There was no such “fact” to “acknowledge”…

    Surely we at least try don’t we?

    Surely, provided we acknowledge our innate humanity and dispense with pretenses.

    Remember, the issue was weather Romney has ‘evolved’ on abortion…

    Perhaps, but the issue I was addressing was that of double standards. However, since you have agreed that Romney was indeed pragmatic, that issue is mitigated and resolved, at least as far as you are concerned on this particular subject. The Mainstream Media remains guilty, however.

    Thumb up 0

  67. CM

    I never disputed that double standards may exist, I was simply saying that in terms of this issue Romney hasn’t ‘evolved’. He’s switched (publicly) to whatever position assisted him polticially at the time, but disputed that he’d done so. Which is why I quoted the line: “The problem with Romney isn’t that he keeps changing his mind. The problem is that he keeps changing his story”.
    No doubt Obama has changed his mind (evolved, or even flip-flopped). But changing your story about that is harder to get away with.

    Thumb up 0

  68. blameme

    http://www.bridgwatercarnival.org.uk/images/merchandise/grandstand.jpg

    I am impressed with your alphabet skills though.

    Weak. Not that you give a shit, but this whole thread has shown just exactly how much evidence you have of going after both sides with equal enthusiasm.

    Damn, we need some real libs here that can explain their own viewpoint and actually have an open mind. What we have now are trolls.

    I had hoped, and at one time, seen better from CM.

    Thumb up 1

  69. CM

    Weak.

    Only you’re allowed to phone it in now?

    Not that you give a shit, but this whole thread has shown just exactly how much evidence you have of going after both sides with equal enthusiasm.

    Not at all. Nobody is going after Obama in this thread (and in the only comparison to Obama I didn’t disagree). Your whole line of attack makes no actual sense.

    This is a right-wing blog. I’m not right-wing. That I’m liable to have more comments reacting to right-wing comments is the most obvious thing in existence. If you add it all up you’re still not going to produce an accurate picture. Again, that should be blatantly obvious.

    Damn, we need some real libs here that can explain their own viewpoint and actually have an open mind. What we have now are trolls.

    I had hoped, and at one time, seen better from CM.

    I don’t remember anything being different when I was “better”.

    The wife and I often joke around with variations on your “we’re just so disappointed in you” routine when it comes to the kids; it’s just so cliched. So thanks for the laugh. ;-)

    LOL. Why on earth would “real libs” come here? What on earth would they find attractive? Most people here do everything they possibly can to make it a closed-shop.

    Thumb up 1

  70. repmom

    I’m curious, blame me. Or anyone else here. Who was the last liberal to spend time at RTFTLC that you respected and considered “open-minded”?

    Thumb up 0

  71. Iconoclast

    But changing your story about that is harder to get away with.

    Granted, but one of the points I’ve been making is that I personally am more than willing to let Romney “get away with it” given that it’s on what should be a peripheral issue, and I suspect there are many who share my view. Hopefully, that view is shared by the majority of voters this cycle.

    Thumb up 1

  72. Section8

    Who was the last liberal to spend time at RTFTLC that you respected and considered “open-minded”?

    My opinion. Most people who spend time debating on political blogs are likely more closed minded than most. Closed minded being strong in the views they hold. If they weren’t, they’d likely spend time posting on other topics outside of politics. The issue here most have with CM is he pretends he’s the voice of reason, and not biased or just slightly left leaning. He can’t just be straight forward, and this has been going on well over a year now.

    Example below. This is cherry picking at its finest. My question was

    Me

    Just show me where he wants to ban it from day one as you have clearly implied, or deliberately mislead, take your pick.

    CM

    That’s the first time I’ve seen a qualification based on gestation. But it’s cherry-picking as it’s overall record and his statements which provide the more accurate picture. It’s also how he scores with the lagrest pro-life and pro-choice groups (with is 100% and 0%). He seems to have consistently pushed to ban abortion, except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life”. But even then, he co-sponsored H.R.358, the bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when it’s necessary to save a woman’s life.
    He believes life begins at conception, which is Day One.

    From Ryan’s site he lined to

    Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children.

    http://paulryan.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=193837

    How on earth am I being misleading on this?

    So he posts a cherry picked quote form Ryan’s own site to support his narrative. Now keep in mind many have been lectured here by this guy for doing the very same thing, and are labeled ideologues and extreme. This while he’s just the voice of reason “looking for answers and trying to understand” which is just plain bullshit. Let’s look at Ryan’s entire statement regarding CMs response to my request.

    Few issues evoke as much passion in America as the debate over abortion. For those that believe life does not begin at conception, the issue is that of a woman’s right to choose. For those that believe life does begin at conception, the issue is that of a human’s right to life. In Wisconsin and Washington, relatively minor attention has been given to major debates and decisions on the abortion question.

    Anything here to ban abortion regarding rape? Nope

    I support the rights of the unborn child. Personally, I believe that life begins at conception, and it is for that reason that I feel we need to protect that life as we would protect other children.

    CM’s cherry picked quote as “evidence”

    Concerns have been raised with respect to an ongoing debate at a University of Wisconsin health center in Madison. Some UW Health officials are seeking to clear the way for second-trimester abortions to be performed at the Madison Surgery Center. Acknowledging the divisiveness of this issue, many on both sides agree that those morally opposed should not be forced to contribute to what they believe is the ending of a human life For federally-funded health care facilities, federal law protects the conscience rights of physicians and health care professionals.

    Anything here to ban abortion regarding rape? Nope. This just involves the rights of physicians at this particular hospital and their choice. Yes, choice. Unfortunately “choice” in lefty world doesn’t just stop at your rights or my rights, but to force someone else to serve you or me as well. No regard for the rights of those forced to serve.

    Along with my colleague Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner from Menomonee Falls, I have written to the UW Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC) expressing my concerns with the impact on pro-life employees should the Madison Surgery Center begin performing second-trimester abortions. Pressure should never be placed on pro-life health care providers to perform what they believe to be morally wrong. The UWHC Authority Board is scheduled to meet this week on the proposed abortion clinic, and many pro-life Wisconsinites will be paying close attention.

    Anything here regarding rape? Nope. No ban. Again just a hospital or hospital staff’s choice. You would still be able to get abortions elsewhere, or even at that hospital, but a doctor should be allowed to decide if she or he going to do one.

    In a similar vein, I believe that pro-life taxpayers should not be forced to fund abortions. On January 23, 2009, three days after taking the oath of office and one day after the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, President Obama cleared the way for your tax dollars to fund overseas abortions. In one of his first executive orders, Obama reversed a long-standing policy (the so-called “Mexico City policy”) that prohibited U.S. tax dollars from funding abortions overseas.

    Anything regarding preventing abortion in cases of rape or banning abortions here? Nope. Just simply that your tax dollars should not be paying for someone else’s abortions. Nothing to stop you from donating for someone’s abortion. Besides why should we be funding overseas abortions of all things. How long will it be until the same leftists accuse the us of doing so for genocide when that narrative becomes useful. As othe’s pointed out, if you’re against abortion don’t have one, which is true. You should not be forced to pay for someone else’s either.

    I believe that U.S. foreign aid should be used to promote and protect life – not finance abortion. In addition to the flagrant disrespect for the rights of the unborn, this decision also offends the deeply held beliefs of millions of pro-life taxpayers. While ensuring that provisions that promote abortions are excluded, I will continue to support efforts to efficiently and effectively allocate resources to help confront the grave public health emergencies that grip many parts of our world.

    I disagree with Ryan. U.S. foreign aid should just stop. Stop giving aid to tin pot dictators and tyrants. It’s not helping anyone.

    On the horizon looms a larger legislative battle: the so-called Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). FOCA would prohibit any federal efforts that interfere with the decision to abort an unborn child. President Obama stated on the campaign trail that one of his first priorities in the Oval Office would be to sign FOCA into law. With one stroke of the President’s pen, many recent victories in defense of life would be squandered. The ban on partial birth abortion, parental notification laws, and a number of state and local protections would be illegal.

    This is the first actual ban he’s stated here. That being partial birth abortions. People can condemn him all they want on this, but they choose to just say “extreme, extreme if you’re raped you’ll have to have the baby!” because sticking to the facts might not win too many people over. That being arguing for partial birth abortions.

    Furthermore, any organization that provides health care benefits or health care information would be required to provide abortions or information on abortion providers. For Catholic hospitals to continue performing obstetrics, they would be forced by the federal government to contradict their own mission statements. If these hospitals fail to comply with the stringent FOCA standards, they could face serious sanctions and even be forced to shut down. To put at risk the viability of religious hospitals will put at risk the health care of many Wisconsinites. The potential damage from this bill is immense, and I am hopeful that Congress and President Obama will keep this bill on the shelf.

    Is he banning here? Nope, just protecting the rights of a hospital and its staff. You could still get an abortion anywhere that has no problem doing it.

    I remain committed to restoring the value of human life and fighting for the rights of the unborn. The UWHC decision is currently being debated. American tax dollars can now fund overseas abortions. The prospects for FOCA’s passage remain unclear. In each of these instances, it is important to have a legitimate and respectful debate. Most importantly, we must ensure that the most vulnerable among us – both unborn children and mothers struggling with unplanned pregnancies – are afforded the compassion and opportunities they need to choose life.

    So he’s talking tax dollars and hospital rights. Where’s this “Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped” again? Or was this someone hyping a narrative?

    Thumb up 2

  73. CM

    Granted, but one of the points I’ve been making is that I personally am more than willing to let Romney “get away with it” given that it’s on what should be a peripheral issue, and I suspect there are many who share my view. Hopefully, that view is shared by the majority of voters this cycle.

    Yeah I think that’s an excellent point. We all let some politicians ‘get away with it’ and with others we’ll pick them up on every single little thing. This blog is a place where Obama is picked up for every little thing. I’ve not read much that’s negative about Romney, other than that he’s uninspiring. But that makes sense – for most people here he’s the preferred candidate, irrespective of his weaknesses or what they don’t like about him.
    Abortion is a bit of a non issue for me here because it’s NEVER an election issue. Never even gets mentioned. The only discussions I’ve really had here are with my wife (and we’re on the same page, no surprise there), and with Americans on the interwebs.

    Thumb up 0

  74. CM

    Where’s this “Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped” again? Or was this someone hyping a narrative?

    Why on earth are you quoting stuff that’s irrelevant while at the same time saying I’ve ‘cherry-picked’ for ignoring. You can’t have it both ways.
    As I made clear, I’ve taken evidence from different places. None of it appears to be definitive, but it paints a clear picture. This is why he went out of his way to dodge the question here.
    Just as you’ve avoided the question you’ve pretended to answer.

    The issue here most have with CM is he pretends he’s the voice of reason, and not biased or just slightly left leaning. He can’t just be straight forward, and this has been going on well over a year now.

    The issue I have is that there seems to be some bizarre requirement to declare oneself as partisan or ideological even. As if it’s a badge of honor or something. I am being straightforward. You just seem unable to comprehend the situation, and your go-to move is to be offended and offensive.

    Thumb up 0

  75. Section8

    Why on earth are you quoting stuff that’s irrelevant while at the same time saying I’ve ‘cherry-picked’ for ignoring. You can’t have it both ways.

    LMFAO. Irrelevant? I’m sorry, only your cherry picked quote is relevant. Anyhow, end of discussion for me. People can read it as they wish. Anyhow, everyone here sees your pattern but you.

    The issue I have is that there seems to be some bizarre requirement to declare oneself as partisan or ideological even.

    Habitual liar has been my description of you for quite some time, nothing’s changed.

    Thumb up 1

  76. repmom

    Section 8 –

    I understand the issues with CM. I just thought blameme’s request for an open-minded liberal was a bit unrealistic. As you state, most – on both sides – are firm in their opinions and ideals.

    Granted – some do a better job of expressing and defending those views. The guy from Japan comes to mind. Anyone recall his name? I’m drawing a blank here.

    Thumb up 0

  77. CM

    LMFAO. Irrelevant? I’m sorry, only your cherry picked quote is relevant.

    Do you even understand what ‘cherry picking’ means? It’s the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. In that case I selected the key sentence from his opinion piece to demonstrate when he believes life starts and what he thinks that means. By pulling out that quote I did not distort the context of the quote. So it was not cherry-picked. I put it up alongside other evidence.

    Anyhow, end of discussion for me. People can read it as they wish. Anyhow, everyone here sees your pattern but you.

    Yep, people can see how you started asking me where Ryan was against abortion from Day 1 even when I claimed no such thing (we were talking about abortion in cases of rape, and you accused me of “post[ing] repeatedly on here that Ryan is opposed to abortions in the case of rape” which isn’t true). You claimed I said that Ryan is going to make it illegal for abortion regarding rape, which is untrue. Then you changed it from the rape discussion to ‘”where does he want it banned from Day 1″. They can see where you dishonestly attributed an argument to me which I didn’t make, but happened to be in the same piece I linked to. And they can see where I quoted a relevant comment from a Ryan opinion piece where he confirmed that he believes life begins at conception (and it is for that reason that he feels society needs to protect that life as it would protect other children). And then they can see how that wasn’t even remotely cherry-picked from the opinion piece, it was the key sentence to demonstrate when he believes life starts and what he thinks that means. LOGICALLY if you hold that a newly fertilized egg just attached to the uterus has all the constitutional rights of an adult or a newborn, then an exception for rape makes no sense. Which is presumably why he refused to answer the questions in the video. And they can then see that you’ve gone back to rape (from ”Day 1″) and spent considerable time going through the rest of the Ryan opinion pieces and confirming that it wasn’t about rape, even though that’s not in dispute.

    Btw, Section8 – good job on the point by point comments above.

    Yeah good job on completely ignoring the question he’s supposedly responding too.

    In summary apparently because I demonstrate a fairly strong view on some aspects of abortion, this means I’m a biased person in general and am lying if I claim to be moderate or mostly centrist in general.
    That makes no sense. At all.

    BlameMe:

    As far as calling others out, they don’t link bomb threads, they assert their own opinions (and call them that) etc. YOU are the one who states he can’t type his own opinion well so he depends on links (which all come from left sites). YOU are the one who comes here asking for multiple links on every topic when the data you seek is easy to find.

    You’ve misread what I said on that. I was talking about people backing up their accusations of others, not facts on whatever the actual topic is.

    Thumb up 0

  78. balthazar

    CM,

    You went full on retard mode on this, you took a quote about peoples rights to NOT perform an abortion, to mean that Ryan wants to ban abortion in all cases, Rachel Madcow would be proud of her little padawan.

    Thumb up 4

  79. Section8

    Your quote

    Yep, people can see how you started asking me where Ryan was against abortion from Day 1 even when I claimed no such thing (we were talking about abortion in cases of rape, and you accused me of “post[ing] repeatedly on here that Ryan is opposed to abortions in the case of rape” which isn’t true).

    and your quote AGAIN

    Right, and Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped.He’s just clarified that he doesn’t care what flavour of rape it is. Which is just despicable, in my opinion. But that’s the stupidity of fundamentalism for you. In order to be consistent, you have to take extreme positions.

    What’s not true? Oh wait, your lie you just posted? As for day 1, I had mentioned earlier that the only evidence I could find is in later term abortions. I even started that conversation in response to your link posting about his ranking with pro life groups. You said it wasn’t even something you were discussing which is fine, so if later term abortions weren’t included in your discussions, then what the hell are you talking about? Outside of later term abortions there isn’t clear shit to match up your quote.

    Right, and Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped.

    STOP, please just STOP with the habitual lying. I know you don’t even see yourself doing it, but please for the love of God or your secular political Messiah, try to look at your posts.

    Ok, how about banning abortion in general which would include in cases of rape? Apparently I cherry picked a later term abortion example, which is the closes evidence either one of us has yet posted to support YOUR narrative.

    That’s the first time I’ve seen a qualification based on gestation. But it’s cherry-picking as it’s overall record and his statements which provide the more accurate picture. It’s also how he scores with the lagrest pro-life and pro-choice groups (with is 100% and 0%). He seems to have consistently pushed to ban abortion, except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life”. But even then, he co-sponsored H.R.358, the bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when it’s necessary to save a woman’s life.
    He believes life begins at conception, which is Day One.

    Seems? Based on what? And you’re the one stating “He seems to have consistently pushed to ban abortion, except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life”” If you want to argue he’s done a push for later in the term, I’d agree, it appears that way. As of now that’s about the only evidence there is outside of commentary, or deliberately misconstruing hospital and hospital staffs rights with women’s rights or funding through tax dollars. Please by all means post something that goes beyond “seems” and just show where he’s banning outright then because if you’re not talking about later term, what the fuck are you talking about other than guesswork to support your narrative? But again, you weren’t talking about him banning anything right, or an extreme position, and apparently if you look at the history of this thread weren’t even talking about late term partial birth abortions? Or were you? Or weren’t you? Or were you? I guess that’s called “evolving” or “flip flopping”? Who fucking knows with you.

    You claimed I said that Ryan is going to make it illegal for abortion regarding rape, which is untrue. Then you changed it from the rape discussion to ‘”where does he want it banned from Day 1″. They can see where you dishonestly attributed an argument to me which I didn’t make, but happened to be in the same piece I linked to. And they can see where I quoted a relevant comment from a Ryan opinion piece where he confirmed that he believes life begins at conception (and it is for that reason that he feels society needs to protect that life as it would protect other children). And then they can see how that wasn’t even remotely cherry-picked from the opinion piece, it was the key sentence to demonstrate when he believes life starts and what he thinks that means. LOGICALLY if you hold that a newly fertilized egg just attached to the uterus has all the constitutional rights of an adult or a newborn, then an exception for rape makes no sense. Which is presumably why he refused to answer the questions in the video. And they can then see that you’ve gone back to rape (from ”Day 1″) and spent considerable time going through the rest of the Ryan opinion pieces and confirming that it wasn’t about rape, even though that’s not in dispute.

    LOL! I posted the ENTIRE piece to show his clarity pertaining to that article. Since he has “extreme positions” according to YOUR QUOTE, and that he “clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped” according to YOUR QUOTE, one would expect to simply see him say he’ll push for a ban on abortion for day 1 as life in is view as you posted begins at conception with your cherry picked quote, without bothering to look at the context of his entire article. As far as his interview, again, guess work. If Romney told him don’t answer, then that’s what he’s going to do. He did say he’s proud of his record, so again, if you have something to show form his record other that later term abortions (since we’re not discussing that apparently), or hospital choice, feel free. Just please quit lying.

    Thumb up 0

  80. Jim

    A quick aside:
    I’m wondering if people realize the term “magic uterus” could be unbelievably offense to women who have actually lost a pregnancy due to stress.
    There are numerous studies done in the past five years linking stress to failure in conception, implantation, and healthy early term pregnancy. My wife has studied the hell out of this topic in the past two years for personal reasons.
    It really makes me shake my head when people froth at the mouth over someone else’s “lack of understanding” of female biology when it is apparent they haven’t spent more than 30 seconds reading any actual studies on the issue.

    Thumb up 0

  81. briggie

    That being said, I think a LOT of politicians are fricking idiots.

    Didn’t someone say, “Any person smart enough to be president is smart enough to know that it is not a job he(she?) wants.” I think it was Perrot.

    Also, if Roe v. Wade was repealed or whatever, wouldn’t the issue just be left to the states? I remember reading awhile ago that it wouldn’t outlaw abortion. I think it should be left to the states, but that is a whole can of worms that I do not want to touch with a 10 foot pole.

    Thumb up 0

  82. Kimpost

    I’m wondering if people realize the term “magic uterus” could be unbelievably offense to women who have actually lost a pregnancy due to stress.

    I hope it isn’t, because people here haven’t been talking about stress. We were discussing the magic uterus theory with regards to forcible rape, specifically. A man in an alley, really raping a woman can’t make her pregnant, because the female body has ways of taking care of it. If she were to get pregnant anyway, then that’s just evidence for that she really liked it. Fucking slut…

    Thumb up 0

  83. CM

    You went full on retard mode on this, you took a quote about peoples rights to NOT perform an abortion, to mean that Ryan wants to ban abortion in all cases, Rachel Madcow would be proud of her little padawan.

    What was the quote? I mentioned that the bill Ryan co-sponsored would allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care even when it’s necessary to save a woman’s life. That’s not a quote. And it’s not wrong. Sure, it doesn’t prove that Ryan wants to ban abortion in all cases, it’s only one piece of the puzzle.

    But anyway, a campaign official has confirmed that Ryan opposes abortion in cases of rape, so we don’t need to look further and put puzzle pieces together, even though they suggest the same thing, and we have the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quotes which also confirm the same thing:

    September 26, 1998
    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

    Ryan, a 28-year-old first-time candidate, said he has consistently opposed legal abortion and makes only one exception — cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life.

    October 30, 1998
    Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

    Ryan has said he favors only one exception to a ban, to save a woman’s life.

    http://media.jsonline.com/documents/ryan+abortion.doc

    http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/17/barack-obama/obama-says-ryan-supports-banning-all-abortions/

    What’s not true?

    Ok if you include the other thread, then I have. My bad. Apologies, I see now that I was wrong about that.

    Anyway, you said:

    I’ve seen you post repeatedly on here that Ryan is opposed to abortions in the case of rape. Is that true in all cases, or after a certain period of time like 20 weeks or so that’s much deeper into the pregnancy, because that’s all I’ve found so far. Have you seen something different?

    The campaign official confirmed it and put no time limits on that, and that is consistent with his co-sponsoring “personhood” legislation, and is consistent with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel quotes above.

    As for day 1, I had mentioned earlier that the only evidence I could find is in later term abortions. I even started that conversation in response to your link posting about his ranking with pro life groups. You said it wasn’t even something you were discussing which is fine, so if later term abortions weren’t included in your discussions, then what the hell are you talking about? Outside of later term abortions there isn’t clear shit to match up your quote.

    As above, there are overlapping pieces of clear evidence on this. The 20 week thing appears to be an anamoly (possibly that’s all he thought he could get through, even though it didn’t reflect his personal belief).

    Here is yet ANOTHER confirmation:

    “Specifically where you stand when it comes to rape, and when it comes to the issue of should it be legal for a woman to be able to get an abortion if she’s raped?” WJHL reporter Josh Smith wondered.

    “I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,” Ryan explained.

    No qualification relating to trimester or anything else.

    STOP, please just STOP with the habitual lying. I know you don’t even see yourself doing it, but please for the love of God or your secular political Messiah, try to look at your posts.

    No lying, he doesn’t differentiate between the methods of conception. A life is a life.
    Why are you trying to undermine his position by cherry picking a single case where a time limit was involved? How does that in any way trump direct quotes?

    Ok, how about banning abortion in general which would include in cases of rape? Apparently I cherry picked a later term abortion example, which is the closes evidence either one of us has yet posted to support YOUR narrative.

    See above. Yes, he would like abortion banned in general. Not wanting raped women to get abortions is an obvious subset of that. Are you now descending into a game of semantics?

    Seems? Based on what?

    Based on what I’ve read. Which is why I wrote ‘seems’. It’s a qualifier.

    Please by all means post something that goes beyond “seems” and just show where he’s banning outright

    Why are you (and others) so intent on confusing “Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped” with “Ryan will ensure that abortion is outlawed”?

    But again, you weren’t talking about him banning anything right, or an extreme position,

    Nope, wasn’t talking about him banning anything (his co-sponsored legislative attempts were obviously trying to alter the rules, and are worth considering when determining his opinions, but aren’t nearly as first-hand as his own stated positions). Yes, I was talking about an extreme position.

    and apparently if you look at the history of this thread weren’t even talking about late term partial birth abortions? Or were you? Or weren’t you? Or were you?

    No, you introduced that, presumbly to try and muddy the waters.

    …one would expect to simply see him say he’ll push for a ban on abortion for day 1 as life in is view as you posted begins at conception with your cherry picked quote, without bothering to look at the context of his entire article.

    One would expect? Again, you’re making shit up and pretending I said it. It’s clear that he would LIKE a ban from Day 1, because that would be entirely consistent with his personal belief (a ban starting from Day 45 would not be consistent with his beliefs and would mostly likely be something he’d support as a compromise – a “better than we have now” situation).

    As far as his interview, again, guess work.

    Not when you add it to the rest of the evidence. Including direct confirmation and quotes.

    If Romney told him don’t answer, then that’s what he’s going to do. He did say he’s proud of his record, so again, if you have something to show form his record other that later term abortions (since we’re not discussing that apparently), or hospital choice, feel free. Just please quit lying.

    As you’ve pointed out, the key comment of mine was: “Ryan clearly opposes abortions for women who have been raped.” Given the evidence, that shouldn’t be in dispute. To pretend he doesn’t oppose it is to attempt to strip back his fundamental beliefs. Why would you even want to do that?

    Thumb up 0

  84. CM

    I’m wondering if people realize the term “magic uterus” could be unbelievably offense to women who have actually lost a pregnancy due to stress.

    We’re only scraping the surface of what is likely (not just could) be unbelievably offensive to women in this whole thing. But apparently that doesn’t matter. One women somewhere doesn’t give a shit presumably, so that makes it ok.

    Plus what Kimpost said.

    Thumb up 0

  85. balthazar

    S8 called you out on it with quotes and links already, you really have a huge memory hole you throw this shit down dont you. Especially when people catch you being one of the biggest hacks on this site.

    Thumb up 0