Is this guy for real?

As sad as it is, yes he is real in his own mind.

Keep in mind, this guy was elected by the people of Missouri to represent them.

jmar wrote: As sad as it is, yes he is real in his own mind.

Keep in mind, this guy was elected by the people of Missouri to represent them.

Thank you for reminding me. Lol. This is bad.

This guy obviously misspoke, lol

Maybe he should have said "Most women weren't really raped legitimately."

burn1986 wrote: This guy obviously misspoke, lol

Maybe he should have said "Most women weren't really raped legitimately."

Republicans have created about 500 separate pieces of legislation nationwide in the last several years that represent variations on this point of view. One of which was coauthored by Paul Ryan. The only thing this guy did wrong was to accidentially tell the truth about what the Republican party believes.

My only observation here is how quickly Republicans called for this moron to fold his tent and go home. Now if this happened to be a Democrat President that, let's say, dribbled cum all over an intern's dress in the Oval Office while his wife was planning Easter dinner upstairs, Democrats would rally behind him and offer him the keynote address at their convention.

Romney's response was:

“Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” a Romney campaign spokesperson told reporters Sunday. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

Yeah, it's just one of those theoretical issues to Romney. Of course, a few years ago when Romney was running for Governor of a liberal state, he said "abortion should be safe and legal in America", so it shouldn't be very surprising when he really doesn't have much reaction to this. He doesn't care one way or the other. There's no profit in either rape or abortion, apparently, so it just doesn't matter much to him.

SShaw490 wrote: Romney's response was:

“Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” a Romney campaign spokesperson told reporters Sunday. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

Yeah, it's just one of those theoretical issues to Romney. Of course, a few years ago when Romney was running for Governor of a liberal state, he said "abortion should be safe and legal in America", so it shouldn't be very surprising when he really doesn't have much reaction to this. He doesn't care one way or the other. There's no profit in either rape or abortion, apparently, so it just doesn't matter much to him.

Lame.

I'm not trying to defend the guy, but think outside of the text at what he might have meant.

Maybe he meant:

Legitimate Rape - A man breaks into a womans house and forcefully rapes her.

Illegitimate Rape - A girl goes out to a bar, dressed inappropriately, being very provacative....she gets drunk, a guy takes her home, they have sex, the next day she claims rape. She was taken advantage of, but at the time it was happening that girl may not be in the same mindset as the girl in the situation above.


I'm only considering options other than what news stations throw in our face.

They (Idiots) come in all colors shapes and political flavors.

SShaw490 wrote: Romney's response was:

“Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” a Romney campaign spokesperson told reporters Sunday. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

Yeah, it's just one of those theoretical issues to Romney. Of course, a few years ago when Romney was running for Governor of a liberal state, he said "abortion should be safe and legal in America", so it shouldn't be very surprising when he really doesn't have much reaction to this. He doesn't care one way or the other. There's no profit in either rape or abortion, apparently, so it just doesn't matter much to him.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/21/romney-tells-akin-to-go/

Whether Akin drops out or not, and it appears he's not, his position is the same as the GOP's and that's going to be a problem going forward.

oldfart wrote: Whether Akin drops out or not, and it appears he's not, his position is the same as the GOP's and that's going to be a problem going forward.

You don't have the slightest clue what the Republican position is on anything. Daily Kos and Huffington Post are poor information sources for anyone looking for the Republican position.

oldfart wrote: Whether Akin drops out or not, and it appears he's not, his position is the same as the GOP's and that's going to be a problem going forward.

vet323 wrote: You don't have the slightest clue what the Republican position is on anything. Daily Kos and Huffington Post are poor information sources for anyone looking for the Republican position.

THE GOP platform calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Willard is tied to that platform.

Does CNN count as a viable source?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/20/first-on-cnn-gop-prepares-tough-anti-abortion-platform/

oldfart wrote: Whether Akin drops out or not, and it appears he's not, his position is the same as the GOP's and that's going to be a problem going forward.

vet323 wrote: You don't have the slightest clue what the Republican position is on anything. Daily Kos and Huffington Post are poor information sources for anyone looking for the Republican position.

oldfart wrote: THE GOP platform calls for a federal ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest. Willard is tied to that platform.

Does CNN count as a viable source?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/20/first-on-cnn-gop-prepares-tough-anti-abortion-platform/

Ron Paul is also still in the running (according to you)-he still "tied to that platform" too?

SShaw490 wrote: Romney's response was:

“Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” a Romney campaign spokesperson told reporters Sunday. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

Yeah, it's just one of those theoretical issues to Romney. Of course, a few years ago when Romney was running for Governor of a liberal state, he said "abortion should be safe and legal in America", so it shouldn't be very surprising when he really doesn't have much reaction to this. He doesn't care one way or the other. There's no profit in either rape or abortion, apparently, so it just doesn't matter much to him.

vet323 wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/21/romney-tells-akin-to-go/

My Romney quote was his original reaction. As usual, he reserves the right to adjust his positions as required to make him seem like a thinking human being when it's pointed out that he normally isn't that.

SShaw490 wrote: My Romney quote was his original reaction. As usual, he reserves the right to adjust his positions as required to make him seem like a thinking human being when it's pointed out that he normally isn't that.

Yeah. Sure does. Typical "there won't be a national health plan without a public option" promise. I can't wait to see how Romney audits the Fed....(Mitt cups hands around eyes, peeks in window, and says, "Yup, there's people in there!")

SShaw490 wrote: Romney's response was:

“Gov. Romney and Rep. Ryan disagree with Mr. Akin’s statement,” a Romney campaign spokesperson told reporters Sunday. “A Romney-Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

Yeah, it's just one of those theoretical issues to Romney. Of course, a few years ago when Romney was running for Governor of a liberal state, he said "abortion should be safe and legal in America", so it shouldn't be very surprising when he really doesn't have much reaction to this. He doesn't care one way or the other. There's no profit in either rape or abortion, apparently, so it just doesn't matter much to him.

vet323 wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/21/romney-tells-akin-to-go/

SShaw490 wrote: My Romney quote was his original reaction. As usual, he reserves the right to adjust his positions as required to make him seem like a thinking human being when it's pointed out that he normally isn't that.

So he's not allowed to "evolve" like a Democrat?

vet323 wrote: http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/21/romney-tells-akin-to-go/

SShaw490 wrote: My Romney quote was his original reaction. As usual, he reserves the right to adjust his positions as required to make him seem like a thinking human being when it's pointed out that he normally isn't that.

jtomasik wrote: Yeah. Sure does. Typical "there won't be a national health plan without a public option" promise. I can't wait to see how Romney audits the Fed....(Mitt cups hands around eyes, peeks in window, and says, "Yup, there's people in there!")

That will be more of a Fed audit that w/Knuckle's guy will do.........

SShaw490 wrote: My Romney quote was his original reaction. As usual, he reserves the right to adjust his positions as required to make him seem like a thinking human being when it's pointed out that he normally isn't that.

jtomasik wrote: Yeah. Sure does. Typical "there won't be a national health plan without a public option" promise. I can't wait to see how Romney audits the Fed....(Mitt cups hands around eyes, peeks in window, and says, "Yup, there's people in there!")

vet323 wrote: That will be more of a Fed audit that w/Knuckle's guy will do.........

Yeah, about as effective as that awesome national health plan that Obummer put in place. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see that audit result in more money being funneled into the hands of the private banks and Wall Street from our taxpayers. You seriously think Romney would take on the banks, eh? Seriously? lol.....not even fucking close. His Wall Street buddies are the ones who helped him make his millions.

You know, I always find it interesting that so many of these lunatics go out screaming about the terrible threat of Sharia law, and then they go out and promote policies and legislation that are Sharia law. I guess the irony escapes the weak-brained.

SShaw490 wrote: You know, I always find it interesting that so many of these lunatics go out screaming about the terrible threat of Sharia law, and then they go out and promote policies and legislation that are Sharia law. I guess the irony escapes the weak-brained.

From my perspective the weak brained lunatic equates someone who is against abortion with that of promoting Sharia Law, IMHO

SShaw490 wrote: You know, I always find it interesting that so many of these lunatics go out screaming about the terrible threat of Sharia law, and then they go out and promote policies and legislation that are Sharia law. I guess the irony escapes the weak-brained.

gabrielmalinois wrote: From my perspective the weak brained lunatic equates someone who is against abortion with that of promoting Sharia Law, IMHO

Legislating that a woman who's raped has to carry the baby to term and raise it is the kind of thing the Taliban would love. And, apparently, so do you. See the connection?

SShaw490 wrote: You know, I always find it interesting that so many of these lunatics go out screaming about the terrible threat of Sharia law, and then they go out and promote policies and legislation that are Sharia law. I guess the irony escapes the weak-brained.

gabrielmalinois wrote: From my perspective the weak brained lunatic equates someone who is against abortion with that of promoting Sharia Law, IMHO

SShaw490 wrote: Legislating that a woman who's raped has to carry the baby to term and raise it is the kind of thing the Taliban would love. And, apparently, so do you. See the connection?

It is a difficult dilemma for sure but I don't think killing a baby is the right thing to do. Fine if you disagree and think killing a baby in this instance is the right thing to do but to call people lunatics and equating them to promoting Sharia law when all they want to do is protect innocent life is really warped. You have a strange world view.

gabrielmalinois wrote: It is a difficult dilemma for sure but I don't think killing a baby is the right thing to do. Fine if you disagree and think killing a baby in this instance is the right thing to do but to call people lunatics and equating them to promoting Sharia law when all they want to do is protect innocent life is really warped. You have a strange world view.

It's not a baby.....it's a fetus......once it is born it is a baby.
You like to inject loaded words into your posts, like calling people baby killers but not really saying it.

The issue is telling a woman that she has no choice over what happens to her body......on the basis of religous beliefs.....very much like parts of Sharia law.

gabrielmalinois wrote: From my perspective the weak brained lunatic equates someone who is against abortion with that of promoting Sharia Law, IMHO

SShaw490 wrote: Legislating that a woman who's raped has to carry the baby to term and raise it is the kind of thing the Taliban would love. And, apparently, so do you. See the connection?

gabrielmalinois wrote: It is a difficult dilemma for sure but I don't think killing a baby is the right thing to do. Fine if you disagree and think killing a baby in this instance is the right thing to do but to call people lunatics and equating them to promoting Sharia law when all they want to do is protect innocent life is really warped. You have a strange world view.

A fetus in the first trimester isn't a "baby" in any sense of the word. The notion that it's a "baby" is a religious thing, not a biological one. And if you want to use that religious position to create legislation that will force women to carry babies of rapists, you'd better get used to accusations that you're no better than the Taliban.

SShaw490 wrote: Legislating that a woman who's raped has to carry the baby to term and raise it is the kind of thing the Taliban would love. And, apparently, so do you. See the connection?

gabrielmalinois wrote: It is a difficult dilemma for sure but I don't think killing a baby is the right thing to do. Fine if you disagree and think killing a baby in this instance is the right thing to do but to call people lunatics and equating them to promoting Sharia law when all they want to do is protect innocent life is really warped. You have a strange world view.

SShaw490 wrote: A fetus in the first trimester isn't a "baby" in any sense of the word. The notion that it's a "baby" is a religious thing, not a biological one. And if you want to use that religious position to create legislation that will force women to carry babies of rapists, you'd better get used to accusations that you're no better than the Taliban.

You guys are idiots. You called it a baby. Is abortion illegal after the first trimester? That is news to me.

SShaw490 wrote: Legislating that a woman who's raped has to carry the baby to term and raise it is the kind of thing the Taliban would love. And, apparently, so do you. See the connection?

gabrielmalinois wrote: It is a difficult dilemma for sure but I don't think killing a baby is the right thing to do. Fine if you disagree and think killing a baby in this instance is the right thing to do but to call people lunatics and equating them to promoting Sharia law when all they want to do is protect innocent life is really warped. You have a strange world view.

jndmx wrote: It's not a baby.....it's a fetus......once it is born it is a baby.
You like to inject loaded words into your posts, like calling people baby killers but not really saying it.

The issue is telling a woman that she has no choice over what happens to her body......on the basis of religous beliefs.....very much like parts of Sharia law.

It is not a baby until it is born? Really? So expectant mothers refer to the thing in their stomach as a fetus and not a baby. Never heard that one. Religious beliefs aside if it is alive then yeah I don't think anybody should kill it regardless of what you call it.

gabrielmalinois wrote: It is a difficult dilemma for sure but I don't think killing a baby is the right thing to do. Fine if you disagree and think killing a baby in this instance is the right thing to do but to call people lunatics and equating them to promoting Sharia law when all they want to do is protect innocent life is really warped. You have a strange world view.

jndmx wrote: It's not a baby.....it's a fetus......once it is born it is a baby.
You like to inject loaded words into your posts, like calling people baby killers but not really saying it.

The issue is telling a woman that she has no choice over what happens to her body......on the basis of religous beliefs.....very much like parts of Sharia law.

gabrielmalinois wrote: It is not a baby until it is born? Really? So expectant mothers refer to the thing in their stomach as a fetus and not a baby. Never heard that one. Religious beliefs aside if it is alive then yeah I don't think anybody should kill it regardless of what you call it.

Do you believe in the death penalty?

gabrielmalinois wrote: It is a difficult dilemma for sure but I don't think killing a baby is the right thing to do. Fine if you disagree and think killing a baby in this instance is the right thing to do but to call people lunatics and equating them to promoting Sharia law when all they want to do is protect innocent life is really warped. You have a strange world view.

SShaw490 wrote: A fetus in the first trimester isn't a "baby" in any sense of the word. The notion that it's a "baby" is a religious thing, not a biological one. And if you want to use that religious position to create legislation that will force women to carry babies of rapists, you'd better get used to accusations that you're no better than the Taliban.

gabrielmalinois wrote: You guys are idiots. You called it a baby. Is abortion illegal after the first trimester? That is news to me.

You're the one who called it a baby. I repeated what you said. And as far as abortion goes, you people could have had a compromise 10 years ago. We could have compromised on legal abortions in the first and second trimesters, or first half of pregnancy, or whatever. We just won't - never will - allow you to designate stem cell embryos as people, fertilized eggs as people, eggs that are NOT fertilized as people, the morning after pill as illegal, early-term abortion as murder, and all that useless, hopeless crap.

We could have solved all this 10 years ago. But you have too many organizations that profit from the fight. End the abortion debate with a rational compromise and you end all those pathetic, abominable hate-monger organizations and the millions of dollars that they bilk out of people. The abortion debate has nothing to do with babies. It has to do with commerce, with a con game that's been run for 40 years now.

This debate reminds me of an interview with Robert McNamara about the war in Vietnam. He said, basically, if America had believed North Vietnam had no designs on anything except unification, we could have ended the whole thing in 1968. But we continued to fight for another 5 years, killing hundreds of thousands of people, tearing our own country apart, for one simple reason - it was politically inexpedient to compromise. The abortion war is exactly the same. A compromise is possible, a rational debate could be held. But you won't engage, and of course there are those (although politcally impotent) pro-choice radicals that feel the same way on the other side. So we'll keep fighting the same fight indefinitely. How many decades are we going to do this?