Todd Akin
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=190510
Printed Date: 17 July 2025 at 7:04am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Todd Akin
Posted By: stratoaxe
Subject: Todd Akin
Date Posted: 22 August 2012 at 5:34pm
|
I find it funny that we get a post on every gaffe and disingenuous comment from the Obama administration yet the board has been oddly silent on what may become a huge problem for the GOP this year- http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/us/politics/todd-akin-provokes-ire-with-legitimate-rape-comment.html" rel="nofollow - This idiot. Let me just express why I find this comment so appalling. I watched a 12 year old come in on a weekly basis to get her pregnancy evaluated. Luckily (or horrifyingly) enough she delivered a healthy baby girl that would likely find out at some point that her grandfather and biological father were the same person. According to Mr. Akin's comments statistically speaking she was a willing participant in this act. I can't think of anything else to say about this. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 22 August 2012 at 5:40pm
|
I think you haven't seen much about it because just about everyone on here finds it a moot point, the guy is a dumbass and (hopefully) will get what he deserves. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 22 August 2012 at 5:46pm
I was referring to a certain person who starts 10 page conspiracy theories on some vague comment but ignores things like this. As far as it being a moot point, it's far from it. There are lots of women's rights groups that are up in arms about this comment and want the GOP to distance itself from this guy. But the tea party has endorsed his "no exceptions" abortion policy and, as a matter of importance, so has Paul Ryan. This guy could very well become the face of the no exception anti-abortionists and really do harm in the November run. -------------
|
tallen702 wrote:Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 22 August 2012 at 5:58pm
A candidate supporting a no exceptions platform =/= endorsing Akin. Didn't Romney and the GOP already urge Akin to quit the race? ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 22 August 2012 at 6:27pm
| You remember that game in grade school where you yelled [a word meaning the male genital appendage] louder than the last kid until a teacher heard you? The GOP has been playing a decades long version with misogynist rhetoric, and the teacher finally heard, apparently. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 22 August 2012 at 8:13pm
Yup. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 22 August 2012 at 10:00pm
Now THAT GUY is someone that we, as a fairly "young" forum, should be talking about. He scares me ****less. His policies are tailored to benefit himself and his ilk and leave everyone else to rot. I know, as someone who was young once, that the thought of needing Medicare seems like a distant idea that we shouldn't worry about, but the reality is that this guy is proposing robbing all the money you all are putting into the program and using it for himself and his generation, while leaving me, and most of you (with the exception of FE and OS) high and dry, fending for ourselves in our extreme old age. I guarantee you that if Paul Ryan ever gets into the White House, you will never retire. You will die at your job just like they did in the 19th and early 20th centuries. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 12:07am
|
I would like to know Tallen, by the time you reach the age of retirement, where will this mystery retirement money come from? How can any democrat or republican change that outcome? By promising more beneficiaries, on top of the mutli trillions? We have made promises that we can't keep. Someone is going to getting screwed hard. Right now everyone is playing musical chairs. Hoping they music keeps playing long enough, that they don't have to witness the mad dash of securing a seat. |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 12:52am
|
Nothing needs to be said, the rank and file of the Conservative Republican Party want him gone, plain and simple, this guy is on the far fringe of the movement, and disowned, what else needs to be said? Who in the mainstream 'Republican' or 'Conservative' movement has defending this idiot? Again self explanitory....not like Democrats who flood to reconstruct or revise the spoken idiocy on thier fringe movements. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 12:56am
|
The assumptions here are just fun reading.....If this person or that person gets elected, this or that bad thing will happen. Depending on desired bias of course. Accept it you all are screwed, get over it, and the idiots you are electing are just digging the hole deeper, for you and your kids, all for the instant gratifacation need, and buying of votes. What does the 'future' concern them, they are getting rich in thier seats, so who cares. Time for them all to go, and the electorate rethink the entire purpose of this exercise. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 2:40am
I agree with you in general, although it seems like Huckabee is being a HUGE idiot too: http://blogs.seattletimes.com/uwelectioneye/2012/08/22/mike-huckabee-provides-political-lifeline-for-todd-akin/" rel="nofollow - http://blogs.seattletimes.com/uwelectioneye/2012/08/22/mike-huckabee-provides-political-lifeline-for-todd-akin/ |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 6:30am
|
impulse, the reality of the situation is that Ryan's budget calls for cuts to Medicare in an effort to cut the budget when the money can come from other sources. First and foremost, we need to curtail the military industrial complex practice of "just give us a blank check." Eisenhower warned us about the massive corruption and spending issues we would get into with defense contracting if we didn't watch them like hawks, and sure enough, he was right. Secondly, the US has some of the lowest tax rates in the world, and some of the most complex tax codes which leave massive loopholes for people like Mr. Romney to hide their money in. We need to simplify the tax code and make sure that we're getting all the money we're supposed to be to pay for the systems which need to hang around like Medicare and Medicaid. Once the baby boomers all die off, the situation will get back to normalcy where you have more people paying in than taking out. Honestly, the single payer healthcare option would have made this a moot point as much as I didn't realize it back then. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 9:44am
| Sounds like you would benefit from Ron Paul. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 10:10am
If you were to give me Ron Paul tempered a little more towards the middle, and minus some of the craziness, I'd take him in a heartbeat. I'm really ready for the moderates of this nation, on both sides of the aisle, to realize that a union of cooperation resulting in a 3rd party would give them the power to set a straight, logical, and responsible course for the nation. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 11:56am
|
Congress would keep him more towards middle than he would like anyway. And you wouldn't have to worry about him trying to work around congress, nor pass executive orders that are un-constituitional |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 12:18pm
|
True. That's what scares me about Ryan as a VP. I don't think congress would do much to stand in his way right now. The House has already shown they're all for his "screw the future of our society" budget plan in an effort to make it look like they're trying to solve the problem by slapping a short-term band-aid on it. What is there to prevent him from pushing sweeping legislation through if he and Romney win? At least the Dems in congress were too damned lazy to do anything when Obama came into office, something tells me Ryan has too much vim and vigor to sit by and let this kind of opportunity pass him by. Mind you, I honestly think this guy is going to turn out to become Romney's Palin in the end. ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 12:33pm
|
If only we had some sort of fair tax system where there's no room for loopholes or confusion... ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 12:35pm
|
Obamacare cut 600 BILLION (wait I just looked it up and was wrong, it is actually $716 BILLION) http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2012/Aug/August-20-2012/That-716-Billion-Medicare-Cut.aspx" rel="nofollow - http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Washington-Health-Policy-in-Review/2012/Aug/August-20-2012/That-716-Billion-Medicare-Cut.aspx from medicare... That already happened, and will affect companies in 2014 (no wonder you haven't been getting as much mail from hospitals in your town...) They have been slashing their budgets in preparation for these cuts. Clearly Akin is out there, but what I want to know is where did he hear this ridiculous claim in the first place?... That is so far out, that he had to have heard it somewhere. This is all a wag the dog election anyway, with the way the media ignores the democrat who was just busted with the high schooler at a truck stop that he met from craigslist... To the Biden gaffes a minute with all the racial elements. Course, it is no wonder the media is so biased, just look at who they spend their money on... http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/" rel="nofollow - http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/
------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 2:34pm
|
The most interesting dynamic from what Aiken said, to me, are these two nuggets: 1) It's kind of a bummer how little a lot of people in the U.S., not just men, but also women, honestly understand about female biology and the potential impact that some laws can have. I recall someone on Fox News saying, during the last big Planned Parenthood brouhaha, that women can simply get a pap smear performed at Walgreens.
2) I think that there needs to be a serious dialogue in the U.S. about rape and rape culture. The really grotesque thing about Akin's statement was the "legitimate rape," as if there are forms of rape that are somehow less legitimate. To me, it speaks to the heap of misconceptions this country has about rape -- that it mostly occurs by strangers leaping out of bushes at night, that the victim is at fault for any aspect of a rape, that the majority of rapes are violent acts, etc.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 2:40pm
That's what baffled me. Generally I'll give politicians a free pass because I think anyone can make a mistake on the spot, but there was no REASON to give this response. There's no need for the anti-abortion crowd to jump through illogical hoops-they believe that abortion is murder, so the response should almost always be "murder is wrong." But again, this guy has a history of making unsettling comments regarding rape. As far as Paul Ryan, I have mixed views. I sort of agree with Impulse here-mathematically the social security fund was doomed from the start. They were unable to calculate in variables like life expectancy and population so the system is lopsided and frankly a sinking ship. So I have strong doubts as to whether I'll see retirement benefits regardless of whether or not Ryan writes the budget. What I would like to see is a move to a more conservative economic path and I don't feel Obama is the man for that job. But that's a whole nother argument. -------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 2:45pm
100% agreed. Rape statistics are an eye opener. My sociology professor spent a lot of time on real vs perceived trends in rape and I realized that I knew next nothing on the subject. The trouble with rape in this country is that we're very hush hush about it. People like Akin make it seem like rape is simply a way for women to get back at men or a way to get pity. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 2:56pm
This is an amazingly complex topic. It's one that there was serious discussion on while I was in the reporting game. News has, for a long time now, had an unwritten rule that you don't publish the names of rape victims. The idea was that because of the humiliation that rape brings, to print the person's name would be to publicly display that humiliation. Around when I was starting, some people had decided that was actually having a negative impact, that it was treating rape victims not as human beings, but as nothing more than a victim of rape forever. It was a linguistic dehumanization. Some agencies have actually shifted to reporting the victim's name if the victim agrees because of it. Another area of debate was the media's portrayal of the Penn State situation as a "sex scandal," of a former defensive coordinator "sexually assaulting" children when in reality it was truly a rape scandal, as the main allegation was that Sandusky raped, anally and orally, a number of children. The choice of language is largely set by the AP Stylebook, and it's done so to hedge off the severity of certain words as not to upset readers. However, I'm of the opinion that it does a disservice to the actual severity of the situation.
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 3:08pm
|
By PA law, yes, that is rape. However, the confusion could come from differing state and local definitions of rape. Some statutes require that the 2 people be of differing gender, some define it as only vaginal intercourse, etc. ------------- 
|
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 5:45pm
|
Now lets look at another aspect of the 'rape' charge. Our Criminal Justice System allows the 'perp' to defend his position in the crime by attacking the 'victim' and the usual defense stylings of the defense attorney. The 'victim' is torn apart, all the while the 'rights' of the accused are 'protected'. Rape is no joking matter, and it happens across the spectrum, but only when a 'idiotic' statement and the need for a political advantage does the issue arise to 'in depth' coverage in our info-tainment media. Here is a classic example of 'dual standards' http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-famous-joking-about-rape-campaigns-obama-" rel="nofollow - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-famous-joking-about-rape-campaigns-obama- And not one 'in depth' look or calls for resignation....strange. -------------
|
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 7:02pm
------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 7:07pm
|
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-famous-joking-about-rape-campaigns-obama-biden_650609.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/senator-famous-joking-about-rape-campaigns-obama-biden_650609.html -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 8:24pm
|
So now were tryIng to discredit Obama by using jokes a comedian ,who probably shouldn't have been elected in the first place, said as a comedian? That's like trying to discredit Obama if he ever stood on a stage with Arnold Schwarzenegger for all the people that he "killed" ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 8:56pm
| It's sad how easy it is to side track republicans during election year. We get it, you don't like abortions, contraceptives, etc etc. But why do you people go out of your way to alienate yourself from the female vote, every election. It's like clock work. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 10:20pm
It's because fringe dwellers always get the media coverage. It's like that in every party. This is an especially awkward position because while his reasoning is different he shares a platform with other Republicans. So they can't just be like "screw that guy he's a loon." Its the reason I've been pissing and moaning about the tea party all along-eventually they're going to be the face of the Republicans. It's just how public perception works. It's the same reason thoughts of Obama bring to mind Muslims, Africa, and dirty Chicago politics. Cognitive recognition is a funny thing, we remember and associate people by their most extreme characteristics, even if those attributes are based on unfounded accusations. Remember how Mama Cass totally choked to death on a ham sandwich? -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 10:51pm
This is the truth. We've been far too OK with rape being the punch-line to jokes, or rape jokes themselves being tossed around, and rape being used in common nomenclature in general.
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 11:20pm
 ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 August 2012 at 11:36pm
|
Hello Mike, welcome to our rape thread. -------------
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 12:16am
|
To be fair, he wasn't THAT far off base, medically speaking, but he definitely worded it wrong. The vagina is a hostile space for sperm and already makes it pretty damn hard for conception. On top of that, if a female is under a lot of stress (such as marital issues, job issues, and yes, rape among other things) it manifests itself physiologically and can in turn make the body less receptive to conception, let alone carrying to term. Of course not impossible. And to comment on whales post about news refusing to release supposed victims names... the news is also quick to jump on releasing the accused name and address, quickly making it a "She said it happened, so he HAD to have done it" situation, despite the decent percentage of accusations that turn out to be false. It's not an equal playing ground and makes it that much harder for the falsely accused. Just like the general idea that people don't view acquaintance rape as 'real rape', they also view "Well no one would lie about that" and label the accused as guilty. ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 12:39am
While reporting on an arrest, the story does almost always include the name of the person charged - because that's the actual fact of what happened. It's not a judgement as to the person actually committing the crime, but simply a statement of fact that Mr. Person was arrested and charged with [SOMETHING] on [DATE]. The address is included to avoid mistaken identity, which can lead to libel lawsuits.
Yes, that can suck for those falsely accused, but it would most likely be a very bad idea to put more stigmatism in the way of victims of rape. http://www.rainn.org/statistics" rel="nofollow - The number of rapes that are never reported because of threat of violence, or because the victim doesn't know what rape is defined as, or for myriad other reasons, is astonishingly high.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 12:53am
-------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:12am
That information, in that type of article, is almost always going to be sourced from a police report.
I'm sure that can happen, but what exactly is the news media supposed to do? Not state the available facts? Where does that end, exactly?
This is a good place to point out that the studies that have attempted to quantify false rape allegations have been scattered because of lack of solid methodology and wonky mechanics. Something like the Maclean study, which found false rapes to be in the upper 40s, use "the victim appearing disheveled" as a criteria -- A ton of these studies that find absurdly high false accusation rates, if you look into them, use outdated concepts of defining what rape actually is.
Again, because you have studies like Maclean, Kanin, and Stewart who use absurd methodologies and get absurd results because of it. Stewart proposed that something like 90% of all rapes were false.
And the amount of criticism of that produced number, and it's basis in way outdated definitions of rape, is quite a bit. It's still defining rape based on individual, non-standardized police reports and charging reports, where reported rapes have been dismissed because the accused didn't use a weapon, or because the victim didn't struggle enough, or because the victim didn't report it soon enough.
Even so, even if the 8 percent are indeed false, despite that number most likely being incorrect, we're talking about studies and polls that consistently show that at least half of all rapes are underreported, with that number growing exponentially on college campuses.
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:16am
|
For sure false accusations happen, and I do believe that penalties should be crazy severe for doing so. I think the lines of rape become especially blurry with statutory rape. But that's a well discussed topic with a fairly common consensus. But my issue with this guy lies strictly in his delivery. It's like people who quite crime statistics all among minorities in conversations about race relations. Are they there? Yup. But when used the wrong way in a conversation it's like portraying then as lesser forms of humanity instead of examine the socioeconomic factors behind the statistics. So while you may be 100% correct that a woman has a harder time conceiving under stress, the way this man used that fact was to cast doubt on a majority of cases. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:21am
It proposes the idea that if you got pregnant from rape, you were not stressed enough, therefore the rape was not "legitimate." Which is a crappy enough thing to say that even Republicans are backing away with their hands in the air.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:23am
And yes, you can argue that it's public record which is why you can do the accused name and that the public can look up the accusers name if they want, but you know people won't do that. I hate when the media uses "We want to respect the privacy of the accuser" but don't give a damn about the accused when they can be just as innocent, if not more so.
I really don't want to go back several years of forum posts, but aren't you of the mind that it's better to have 10 criminals go free than 1 innocent go to jail?
Not may be, AM  And that's why I'm not standing up to the national and going "Nuh-uh, he's right!" He worded it wrong, didn't use science, and just relied on paraphrasing what others told him. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:29am
It's an interesting debate, for sure. And it's one I'm not sure I honestly have a solid opinion on. I can for sure see the side of releasing the name of the victim, but I can also see the potential harm in it.
Fair enough assessment. I'm just not sure what the media can do out it -- of course one answer you've gotten at is a good one: Do a better job with follow-up stories.
Indeed, why?
In context, not really. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:35am
I don't see that happening, it won't sell ad spots and produce revenue for the news agency. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:44am
It has to do with the stigma around rape. It's why you don't hear this kind of debate around robbery victims, or assault victims, or anything else victims. Rape, because of the sexual violation that occurs due to the nature of the crime, carries this emotional burden with it -- it's something actually counter to most psychological research on the topic, which highly suggests rape is way more about violence and power than it is sex. Rape is a weird crime, and it gets weird contextual situations because of it. Not saying those are completely logical, just that they exist.
It's an interesting proposal. Not one I'm sure I agree with, because the idea of due process isn't really connected to the idea of privacy, and the differences between the societal role of the legal system vs. the media, but it's interesting, nonetheless.
Pretty much. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:57am
|
I can certainly see both sides of the debate here, but let me throw something out there that I find significant. To Linus' point, while I agree that showing only the accused could possibly ruin an innocent person, I would argue that the news only shows stories that create a buzz and the simple (pardon my downplaying of severity for the sake of discussion) "girl gets violated by ex-boyfriend / crazy uncle" story that accounts for a large portion of rapes isn't going to be newsworthy. Those are the he said / she said cases where the possibility of wrongful accusation becomes much broader than the "woman abducted by homeless person, raped, and nearly beaten to death" story that's going to make the news. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 11:08am
|
What I find interesting about the Akin thing is the way the media frames the party they hate with the "extreme" label, when Obama himself voted to keep partial birth abortions every time it faced his vote... In fact when he described the problem of babies being born alive after a botched partial birth abortion. Obama said this "In fact, they're not just coming out limp and dead," Obama then wanted to allow Abortionists to let the baby die by leaving it alone. I guess Tillers method of "snipping" them was too brutal a method of infanticide for even Obama, but letting them starve to death was a suitable "non extreme" outcome for his conscience. The way the media plays to one side is so annoying. Especially when it totally goes against the will of the people they report too. I guess we Bible thumping red necks are too stupid to understand a baby that is born alive should have the protection of our constitution. I can hear the liberal reporter now "silly old federal papers, they just don't understand the complexities of the world today"... The rape thing is just disturbing, especially when you look at the most popular democrats and their "experience" with rape... Course the media never mentions any of that... But, the public knows the truth. http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/dems_better_put_some_ice_on_that_rape_talk.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/dems_better_put_some_ice_on_that_rape_talk.html
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 11:43am
The former, though, are far and above more common than the "stranger jumping from the bushes" type scenario. And also, the former tend to be the most underreported as well, as opposed to the latter. Mostly because a lot of women don't understand the actual meaning of rape. If a woman and her boyfriend get tipsy, he wants to have sex, she says no, he keeps asking and she doesn't say yes, but simply allows it to happen without fighting, that's still a rape. But, then again, what you said is the truth. The much, much rarer "stranger in the bushes" story makes for better news, and gets played up much more often. Rape is a really, really weird dynamic in a lot of ways.
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 12:53pm
|
The way the democrats are pumping up the 'war on women' campaign because of this akin flap is just unbelievable. CNN commits a random act of journalism. To which Debbie tells him it doesn't matter what she says, or who she misquotes, her message is more important than the facts she is misrepresenting... Or something. How anyone can be a fan of the democrats when SHE is the face, voice and logic of their party is beyond me. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:10pm
| Everything is about liberal conspiracy with you, isn't it? |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:16pm
|
It isn't a conspiracy... JournOlist, blatant bias that I point out daily, and this.. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/" rel="nofollow - http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/22/donations-by-media-companies-tilt-heavily-to-obama/
Clearly the media in our country is liberal. They don't even hide it anymore. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:22pm
|
And clearly every website you read and news you see is right Wong. They don't even come close to hiding it. The headlines I see on fox news are so heavily tilted to the right I feel like I have the Onion news network on. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:35pm
|
Clearly you didn't read the article I posted twice. "Even companies whose news outlets are often perceived as having a conservative bias have given significantly more money to Mr. Obama. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, for example, has contributed $58,825 to Mr. Obama’s campaign, compared with $2,750 to Mr. Romney." ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 1:53pm
| Wouldn't you think a right leaning news station would want a democrat in office, so they could report on everylittle thing the president does wrong, instead of defending him. Its a company, they want profits, nothing more. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 2:01pm
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 2:15pm
|
Yeah, if a republican was President, we would be seeing stories about how our gas prices are KILLING the economy. Stories on the Billions lost through the republican push on solyndra and all the other failed green companies funded by the stimulus. And how Obamacare took 700 billion from medicare... but, since it is the party they love. They cover it up. And whale yawns predictably, as he figures they are just overworked or lazy or something... ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 2:32pm
And it's a shame, because I thought a pretty good conversation was going on about rape culture in the U.S. Even if I didn't agree with some of it, it's an interesting dialogue to have. But, as what happens when a thread gets spammed and diverted into abortion, the media, and general tin foil, I'll most likely click back to the index after making this post and ignore the thread henceforth. There's no point. It'll be the same links and the same silliness that's been spammed for years now. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 3:16pm
|
Well, we have had years worth of liberal control, of our media and the government and clearly we are so much better off than we were years ago... Oh wait... maybe they need 4 MORE years? What is the "goal" of the next election anyway, I've not heard from Obama what he "needs" to fix the economy and the country, all I hear is bashing the "other" side from the media and the left. ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 3:21pm
|
I seriously think FE is bordering on spam with this stuff. Your liberal conspiracy has nothing to do with the topic-we're discussing the implications of what is almost universally accepted as a hurtful, offensive comment. Anything else needs to go in another thread. -------------
|
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 3:32pm
Broken record mohr plz. -------------
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 3:41pm
|
It has everything to do with the topic at hand... We are talking about what Akin said. And the left is clearly painting the republican party as the party of if you get raped, you have to have the child. Obama and the media want to paint the republicans as out of touch with the country as rape is clearly a touchy subject. To pretend that this isn't manufactured political drama is silly. Besides, if the conservatives are "extreme" and yet Obama just had the DNC change their stance on abortion to the degree that they have, and that isn't also "extreme" then why even discuss anything? If the far right is extreme, then the far left is also extreme. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314892/what-voters-will-remember-about-abortion-november-carl-anderson" rel="nofollow - http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/314892/what-voters-will-remember-about-abortion-november-carl-anderson
As I have said before, one of my high school friends was the product of a rape, (he even looked like his moms attacker). According to the democrats, he should have been aborted because of the crime of his father. He disagrees with that position...
------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 3:58pm
|
No, he should not have been aborted because he is the child of a rape. His mother should have the ability to make that choice for herself. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 7:59pm
|
Can we get some mods to do their friggin jobs? We ignored his spammy crap here for a couple pages until BB just had to respond and now look at the thread. This discussion was making progress. Please, mods, please. Just moderate already! ------------- 
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 8:57pm
I'm sorry, if you can teach me the strength to ignore, I will, sensei. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 24 August 2012 at 9:21pm
Repeat after me, "I will not bait the Troll, I will not bait the Troll, I will not bait the Troll...." ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: evillepaintball
Date Posted: 25 August 2012 at 5:31am
|
Baiting the troll? He's a master. -------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 25 August 2012 at 11:38am
Even you can't make those two things connect in a logical manner. You're stretching your neck to justify spamming every thread with the same tired crap.
I used to understand letting FE get away with this crap because, as a general rule, if you ignore trolls they go away. But he spams it regardless of whether or not you respond and clutters up the threads with useless ranting. -------------
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 25 August 2012 at 11:59am
I don't know what this is and I am afraid to ask.
I can't speak for the other mods, but I am not "moderating already" because after having looked back through the pages of this thread it got to this point through the natural progression from Idiot-reps statement through an observation on the difference in the way the general media treats the opposite sides of the political spectrum. Part of moderating is knowing when not to interfere. As pointed out by someone else, those that wish to keep the topic closer to the original subject can always refrain from responding to the non-applicable posts. Part of foruming is knowing when not to post. ------------- 
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 25 August 2012 at 12:55pm
|
Dont chum the water if you want to keep the sharks away.
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 25 August 2012 at 4:59pm
|
This forum is making my run at political apathy difficult. Fact of the matter is- Todd Akin's a dope- enough that the main stream Republicans want to distance themselves from him and his idiocy. But the left doesn't want to recognize that because they've got gold in their hands and will do anything they can to make sure that the public thinks that's how ALL people on the right think. Its turned something as serious and disgusting as rape into a political game, another reason I'm finished with all of it. Now let me put my head back in the sand. Wake me when this November's auction is over. ------------- ? |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 7:57am
|
And the http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-slansky-/paul-ryan-said-something-_b_1832377.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false" rel="nofollow - Derp! just keeps on piling up and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/tom-smith-rape_n_1834234.html" rel="nofollow - piling up . ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 8:51am
|
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 9:14am
|
Huffpo... Yeah, love how they spin what he said. They shouldn't have put the video on it, if they were going to change what he said in the story... So if you were the child of a rape, should you be killed, or were you not actually conceived in that act of rape? The child didn't have anything to do with it, why does the child get destroyed?...
Another example of huffpo changing the storyline to bash Republicans, wow, I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you! ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 9:43am
|
You know, as much as it pains me I'm going to say that FE has a point here. It goes back to my original statement-if you believe that abortion is baby murder then there's going to be very little that excuses such an act. That's the bottom line for pro-life voters. -------------
|
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 1:26pm
| Which makes it a very intolerant bottom line with little to no consideration for womens' health (mental and physical) or rights. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 2:17pm
I'd agree that it's not conducive to women's rights intolerant might be strongly worded. Again, if you're point of view dictates that abortion is murder then murder is unacceptable. That's the trouble with abortion-there's no black and white like you see with gay marriage or civil rights. The science behind abortion is less science and more a shift in ideology-does a different stage in the life process somehow being with it a higher value in society? Abortion beliefs lie in the defining of the life process, and such a thing can't be simply dismissed as intolerant. Me? I'm pro abortion because I don't care. I think its silly to be pro life yet pro war and anti welfare. I find that sometimes life must be disregarded for the overall good of society. It's natural selection on an economic scale. But that's how my ideology dictates my beliefs-I'm pro welfare not because I'm necessarily a caring individual but because I think that there are non progressive elements of society that are either unable to shift their economic position or are unwilling and that a small amount of the overall GDP donated to these groups can either A:) prove to be a rewarding economic initiative or B:) keep them alive enough to satisfy the sociological need to promote human life and possibly prevent crime. But not everybody will find my mindset appealing (most just think I'm a jerk) so I tend to be non dismissive to opposing viewpoints, especially on issues of human life -------------
|
Posted By: deadeye007
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 2:43pm
|
I'm torn on the whole aspect of welfare preventing crime because I see so many criminals that get a check and still commit crimes, but then again how would one measure the crimes that are prevented because people get welfare? I could easily see someone committing a robbery or burglary for money to buy food if it wasn't provided. ------------- Face it guys, common sense is a form of wealth and we're surrounded by poverty.-Strato |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 3:04pm
Social darwinism is an erroneous reading of both sociology and darwin's theories. And yes, there is an enormous segment of the population that will not shift economic position; social mobility in the US is largely a fantasy. The naive notion that hard work begets success and that all 'the poor' need to do is get off their keisters and work to get rich is one of the most harmful myths of capitalism. The entire system is predicated upon a large, economically indentured class which generates increasing wealth for the upper class. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 3:34pm
|
While you and I come from very similar ideological standpoints, I'd nitpick a couple of points- As far as social Darwinism, I think it's very difficult to discount an abstract idea as erroneous. Sociology is essentially a more hands on approach to philosophy and both inspire never ending quibbles over complex abstract ideas. So again, I don't see this as a black and white issue. And to the point of the application of Charles Darwin's ideas, bear in mind that social darwinism predates Darwin himself. It was more of a connect the dots type thing post Darwin to apply a terminology. My comment was more of a passing observation about the nature of abortion and the economic results rather an endorsement; I know too little about social Darwinism to really delve too deep. I think that, above all other reasoning, it's important to apply all of your ideas universally. If you can't, I feel that a logic system is flawed and therefore a poor foundation for the building blocks of society. With that in mind I feel that America's current ideological war consists of two sides that exercise very poor logic and I think that this instability of ideas had translated to economic and sociological instability. -------------
|
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 4:00pm
Maybe I'm missing something, but how is it illogical, for example, for me to be Pro-life/anti-welfare, but not for you to be pro-choice/pro-welfare? ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 4:13pm
|
Todd Akin is so staggeringly, mind-numbingly stupid that I despair for your country that he is involved whatsoever in politics. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 4:14pm
It depends on your ideology. If you follow the Republican platform of the sanctity of life you run into a huge ideological contradiction. There are a million reasons to be pro or anti abortion,but the common Republican standby of value of life becomes self defeating when you're violently anti-welfare nd blindly pro-war. There are a myriad of reasons you could be both and not self contradicting. Social responsibility and so forth. But the Republican platform, and really the Democrat platform as well, has made such an effort to appeal to everyone that their own reasoning has become self defeating. As far as my own beliefs, I feel that both welfare programs and abortion are beneficial in the long run. I could be wrong, in fact odds are that most of us are in some way wrong. Again, I'm attacking the political platforms of both parties, but in this case the Republican party in specific. I should probably have been more specific in stating that. Also, like I said, it's very difficult to speak in absolutes and argue abstract thought. I don't feel that my opinions better than yours, it just suits my outlook better. From a moral perspective I can only think of a few reasons you'd be morally justified in having an abortion but arguing individual moral outlooks is tiring. It's more fun to delve into socioeconomics and play with variables. -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 6:24pm
Because it's NOT a child, it's some cells. Your religious beliefs should not change my legal rights to access safe solutions to life-altering problems. I can't imagine the poo-fit you would throw if ANY other religion came in and tried to pass a law about what you can or cant do with your body, why is it okay for yours to do the same? |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 8:10pm
What if it isn't based on religious beliefs? ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: BARREL BREAK
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 9:23pm
|
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 28 August 2012 at 11:39pm
You're right, and this is where I begin dropping off substantially from the mainstream political viewpoints (I'm a political hipster .) I tend to view the federal government as something that works against the people as much as it works for them. Not necessarly in an evil or menacing way, but that I believe when voting it's best to at least look at the federal government as a dangerous necessity rather than a political mouthpiece.So I tend to think that preservation of rights on a state and local level are the more important bottom line in the scheme of things than who's in power in the federal government. The trouble is that Americans (including myself) have really lost track of local politics in favor of national politics. We look to the federal government for all the answers to all the questions and forget that the state and local governments hold a very important place in the arrangement of power in the U.S. I tend to think that the current power struggle / Sunday night football approach to in politics is a direct result of people placing their focus entirely on the presidential race. The federal government only holds the answer to certain issues, and the more we look to them to solve issues that they weren't meant to the more of a hole we dig. Now I want to draw a distinction here and kind of separate myself from the inevitable libertarian / small government approach to politics. I feel that the term "small government" is silly because the federal government has never been and will never be small. I think that it's important to work towards an achieveable goal and I think that the focus should certainly be on allowing the states to have more say in issues that effect them directly.
Your response exemplifies why I refuse to talk about my own personal morality with other people. If I tell people that I feel like abortion is socially irresponsible with the exception of rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life I get similar responses. My own response to your statement is this-my personal beliefs don't dictate what your friends and family members do at all, so what does it matter what I feel? That's why arguing morality is the intellectual equivalent to banging your head on a brick wall just to hear the cracking noise. My morality doesn't affect anyone because I separate morality from law. Legally? Your kid your conscience. Again, in the grand scheme of things abortions have alot of potential in stopping the poverty cycle. I'm fine with abortion being legal. Some chick wants to have five abortions? Go for it, that's five kids that won't have to deal with her problems. I have no trouble sleeping at night because of the actions of others. But my personal belief for me, myself, and I is that if I make the effort to procreate and a life is created because of that procreation that's called "consequences." You may disagree with that-and that's fine. We all have to live by our own values and there's nothing wrong with that as long as our values don't become politically backed. You know what they say about opinions and noses. -------------
|
Posted By: clownshooter
Date Posted: 29 August 2012 at 7:49am
|
Ok I'm going to dust off the cobwebs here and comment. Do I think Akin is a tool. Probably. What bugs me is that these guys have political aides that the candidate is supposed to use to vet his/her comments for syntax, accuracy, and controversial content. God (not the moderator God) forbid a politician should ad lib. (they may tell the real truth and nothing but..!) I understand what he (Akin) was trying to say therefore I'll stop short of saying he's a mysogynist. As far as rape is concerned...well yeah, there's legitimate rape which should really be referred to as proven forcible rape; a felony; and (remember the Duke lacrosse team), not "I consent tonight" and "he raped me" tomorrow type of rape because it's he said she said! Then there's date rape which I call sneaky rape that seems to me to be a more non-violent form of forcible rape. Then there's good old statutory rape where she said she was 18 (and looked it) and turned out to be 16 uh-oh. The latter happened to the son of a good friend. She actually bugged him to have sex, and told him she was 18. Afterward she bragged about it to friends who were so good at keeping a secret, her parents found out, were outraged and involved the police. It finally got resolved, but the kid now has an assault on a female charge on his record. What happened to the girl? Absolutely nothing! Just another inequity in our legal system which I find strange. The male is always held responsible yet women claim that they are more mature and grow up faster; so shouldn't the blame and charges in some cases be shared? (Note I realize there are those that know the girl is underage and I'm not referring to them. They are responsible) The Republicans are going to have to throw Akin under the bus, but not for Mysogyny, for stupidity! Just my two cents FWIW.
|
Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 29 August 2012 at 8:16am
Go die in a fire, you drooling lackwit. ------------- "Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation." -FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011. Yup, he actually said that. |
Posted By: clownshooter
Date Posted: 29 August 2012 at 10:27am
| What's your major malfunction Blowhard...er..ah.. Brihard. You think date rape is a good thing or what eh? |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 29 August 2012 at 11:55am
|
^^^ Just remember . . . his dress uniform does involve a skirt.
-------------
|
Posted By: clownshooter
Date Posted: 29 August 2012 at 12:17pm
Ooooh! 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 29 August 2012 at 2:39pm
|
Rape is rape is rape. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 30 August 2012 at 5:21am
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |