Patterico's Pontifications

8/22/2012

Why Conservatives Ask Akin to Go

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:22 pm



While every notable pundit who lives in the real world has agreed that Akin must go, there are apparently some not fitting that description who think the GOP has turned on its own — and that if Akin loses, it’s our fault and not his (!). It’s a convenient position that allows these pundits to blame Akins’s all-but-inevitable loss on those trying to get him out of the race. Why, oh why, would conservatives turn on him like that? Because we want him to get out of the race — because he compounded an initial gaffe with dumb interview after dumb interview, stomping repeatedly on his own junk, blaming the liberal media, and generally fumbling and stumbling his way through. Because he’s an idiot. Former supporters like William Jacobson, Dana Loesch, and others are now urging him to go. Will it work? Maybe not . . . but maybe. And it’s probably our only chance.

He’s not unfit for office, but the voters will probably find him so. We keep hearing about how we should sing an anthem to the fact that the Voters Have Spoken (well, 36% of them, anyway) — but when they speak in November, it will be our fault, apparently, and not the incompetent moron politician’s fault.

That said, I agree with Paul Mirengoff entirely (h/t daleyrocks):

The problem with Akin’s statement – and it is a very big problem – lies in his view that the female body has ways to shut down its reproductive process in response to rape, such that pregnancies resulting from rape are “really rare.” The evidence strongly contradicts this assertion. Akin’s embrace of junk science not supported by data represents the same kind of triumph of ideology over facts that, as noted above, some feminists are guilty of.

. . . .

Was Akin’s comment stupid and offensive? Yes, in the sense I just described, though not in the sense that some have claimed.

Does Akin’s continued candidacy jeopardize the chance to defeat Claire McCaskill? Yes, if we’re lucky. If we’re unlucky, it destroys that chance.

Do the Republicans deserve a better candidate than Akin, even apart from concerns over electability? Yes.

Is Akin unfit to be a U.S. Senator because of his remark? No, in my opinion, provided that he repudiates his view that pregnancies caused by rape are really rare.

Would Akin be a better Senator than Claire McCaskill? Yes, just compare their voting records in Congress.

Meanwhile, Ace explains the meaning of forcible rape in the guise of Detective Munch.

P.S. It’s worth remembering that Barack would apparently allow women and their doctors to kill their babies at any moment until they’re born — and perhaps (through medical neglect) even after birth. I would venture to say that’s a bigger deal than a dumb gaffe about “legitimate rape.” Too bad Akin couldn’t, say, effectively make that point?

225 Responses to “Why Conservatives Ask Akin to Go”

  1. I will not be held responsible for the mistakes of others. Personal responsibility. I’m weird that way.

    Patterico (83033d)

  2. Akin isn’t going to lose because when he loses it was because of you.

    Dustin (73fead)

  3. Akin cannot win.

    This is not his first gaffe since the primary.

    Republicans desperately need to win that seat.

    And he may drag down other Republicans, who will be off-message when forced by the media and their opponents (but I repeat myself) to address the issue of abortion in cases of rape.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  4. Also, Akin is an idiot.

    And in the extremely unlikely event that he did win, he would be a major embarassment for Republicans over the next six years.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  5. annursa

    apparently he wasnt an embarassment to Ryan who asked him to co-author anti abortion legislation on more than one occassion in the house

    Oh well if facts get in the way of a narrative..

    So we maybe seeing more crappy tactics from the dems tying anyone to Akin.

    Here’s the problem, what he said wasnt a bif deal if you hear it – he’s talking about the killing of babies and the fact that pregnancies from rape (which is a fact) are relatively rare.

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  6. From National Journal

    [B]arely two weeks into the general-election campaign, Akin committed a series of gaffes. He called a McCaskill campaign website attacking his record accurate, admitted not knowing what was in a farm bill important to his state, suggested reconsideration of civil-rights laws, and called a federal school-lunch program unconstitutional. Akin’s recent statement that “legitimate rape” rarely causes pregnancy, while uniquely offensive, was just the worst in a series of statements advertising his unsuitability and the final straw that caused GOP leaders to conclude that he is unelectable against even the extremely vulnerable McCaskill.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  7. EPWJ: apparently he wasnt an embarassment to Ryan

    Here’s the problem, what he said wasnt a bif deal if you hear it

    Congressman Paul Ryan disagrees with your assessment…

    “His statements were outrageous, over the pail. I don’t know anybody who would agree with that. Rape is rape period, end of story,” Ryan told KDKA.

    aunursa (7014a8)

  8. WEll we’ll take their word for it,

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress-legacy/akin-the-establishment-strikes-back-20120821

    but does the National Journal, offered any substantial and sustained criticisms of Obama’s gaffes, in the same issue, there is a lame attempt
    at a debunking of Nial Ferguson’s superb cover story,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  9. aunursa

    Good read the Wikipedia article about him

    He’s a good man – nd I’m glad he’s staying in the race and last I heard Dana Loesch and the crew and Andrew’s place are supporting him.

    As if he cares – he is hated wildly for his anti abortion stance and is a veteran and a manager from private industry.

    96% conservative union rating a+ from the NRA and hates liberals

    gee, wheres the bus lets through him under again

    At least Romney has his excuse for losing now…

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  10. throw not through – geez……

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  11. Well said, Patterico. This idiot needs to go.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  12. EPWJ supports him?

    There’s your sign.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  13. aunursa

    Ryan – learning to lie

    The national battle over Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape” has shed light on a “personhood” bill, co-sponsored by Akin and Paul Ryan, called the Sanctity of Life Act.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/how-bad-is-the-ryan-akin-anti-abortion-bill/2012/08/20/c7e37e04-eafe-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_blog.html

    Note – this wasnt bad, this wasnt even to the level of bad, this wasnt a Biden, or an Obama level Gaffe, this wasnt even a gaffe.

    Unless you are a rabid pro-abortion Nazi like the MSM and the dems

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  14. Unless you are a rabid pro-abortion Nazi like the MSM and the dems

    Yeah, like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Levin, all five current and former Missouri Republican senators, the RNSC, the Republican Super PACs, etc., etc.

    Geez!

    aunursa (7014a8)

  15. Ryan couldn’t explain why rape needed to be defined as forcible rape, and neither can you.

    Abortions available to sodomized Christian virgins only
    “A Broadsheet reader forwarded the following excerpt from Friday’s edition of “The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,” but I’ve been unsure of how to post it without actually vomiting. I think it’s time to just bite the bullet.

    During a segment about South Dakota’s bill to ban most abortions, which offers no exceptions for cases of rape or incest unless the pregnant woman’s life is in danger, state Sen. Bill Napoli (R) was asked if he could conceive of a scenario in which the exception might be invoked.

    Indeed he could. ‘A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged,’ he said. ‘The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.’ ”
    http://www.salon.com/2006/03/08/bill_napoli/

    still sleeeeepy (b5f718)

  16. Also I’m curious about the ryan quote – did he mean “over the pail” where the waste goes from dismembered children – or – “over the pale” – which doesnt make any sense – or did he mean beyond the pale?

    Should we throw Ryan under the bus for being an idgit? who cant speak?

    Or should we throw Ryan under for abandoning the legislation he just authored?

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  17. Did EPWJ just criticize someone for, um, a lack of clarity in writing or speaking?

    Surreal.

    Simon Jester (4b3e14)

  18. aunursa

    Right – lets let the voters decide

    Aunursa the reason they asked Akin about the forcible rape was that Ryan drafted legislation which he later withdrew and asked Akin top sponsor it

    It was about the definitions of forcible rape and the release of federal funds for treatment of pregnancies to define and limit (to curb abuses) of false rape claims

    So Ryan hasw alot of responsibility in this and this is a case of ambush journalism and they played us to a tee.

    gawd it was soooooooo obvious

    Dana Loesch called it – the interview was taped DAYS before it was released and it was not even SCHEDULED to be released unless Akin won.

    go figure

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  19. “Ryan couldn’t explain why rape needed to be defined as forcible rape, and neither can you.”

    still sleeeeepy – Sure he could, he just didn’t want to. The mystery is why you believe it is a talking point.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  20. Simon

    did your irony meter explode?

    yeah – I did feel a twing of shame…

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  21. It’s all water under the troll bridge, there really aren’t any alternatives, besides I recall what happened to a candidate who made a personal decision in favor of life, yet had made no policy pronouncements in their tenure in office, ti didn’t matter about the latter.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  22. Whenever I read EPWJ’s description of the actions of others, I go looking for a VERY large grain of salt.

    Based on his previous pitiful posts.

    You really are a joke, dude. Yet, like the Weeble you are, you just keep posting your bizarre rants.

    Simon Jester (4b3e14)

  23. EPWJ – still sleeeepy has tried to use that Sanctity of Human Life Act several times as a BS talking point. Are you two coordinating now?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  24. EPWJ: So Ryan hasw alot of responsibility in this and this is a case of ambush journalism and they played us to a tee.

    It’s Paul Ryan’s fault.

    It’s the media’s fault.

    It’s everyone’s fault except the clown who spouts off misogynist nonsense because he doesn’t know basic medical facts about what is supposedly an extremely important issue to him.

    Do you realize that you sound just like Obama’s defenders who blame everyone and everything except the man in the Oval Office?

    aunursa (7014a8)

  25. Simon

    I understand your pain, but we have no conservative in this race – if Ryan can run from his anti-abortion bills that he himself wrote and throw hose that helped and supported him at greater personal cost under the bus…

    How on earth is he going to show any stones in standing up for what is right…

    give me a freakin break

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  26. As distasteful as it is to admit, rape is an evolved behavior that exists in several species including, unfortunately, ours. Why does it persist? Because in the past it led to pregnancy and childbirth, thus passing on the combinations of traits that make the rape behavior not only possible, but also pervasive among certain kinds of men throughout all cultures and times.

    In short, Akin’s not only stupid in all the ways Patterico mentioned, but he’s dead wrong conceptually and not just medically. Rape exists because it “works”, or did work anyway before plan B and the like.

    Rape is evil, awful, and so forth. But yeah, it causes pregnancy.

    Random (dd401a)

  27. …Barack would apparently allow women and their doctors to kill their babies at any moment until they’re born — and perhaps (through medical neglect) even after birth.

    Well, first of all, there’s no “perhaps” to it; Obama would allow women and their doctors to kill their babies after they’re born. As long as the intention was to kill the child during an abortion and it refuses to cooperate, then after it’s born is OK with him, too.

    Which is why it’s amusing when he claims that he’s “pro-choice” because he believes women make responsible choices.

    As if someone who refuses to acknowledge a living, breathing, kicking baby is a person is some sort of authority on responsibility.

    And doubly amusing when he says the government shouldn’t interfere. It’s the one “choice” he believes government shouldn’t interfere with. He definitely believes the government should interfere with the choices employers make due to matters of conscience. As a matter of fact, he believes that the government should dictate that choice.

    And via his various mandates he would demand taxpayers participate in that choice, and fund it, should that choice involve abortion.

    He speaks of “responsible choices,” but it should be remembered that the party accusing the GOP of waging a war on women couldn’t even bring itself to ban abortion based on gender selection. Which overwhelmingly effects unborn children identified as girls.

    Since we can’t rely on the US press to accurately report on trends in the US that would reflect negatively on our moral superiors in the Democratic party, we must look to the UK and see what our shared trends reveal these “responsible” choices to be.

    Doctors ‘agree to abort babies for being the wrong sex… no questions asked’ Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105105/Doctors-agree-abort-babies-wrong-sex.html#ixzz24LHKNrXW

    Health Secretary Andrew Lansley last night launched an urgent investigation after it emerged that doctors were offering mothers abortions based purely on the gender of their unborn child.

    Doctors working for NHS and private clinics were said to be agreeing to carry out the terminations despite the fact that ‘sex-selection’ is against the law.

    They were also allegedly recorded admitting they would falsify paperwork to arrange the illegal abortions.

    An investigation by the Daily Telegraph saw undercover reporters accompany mothers-to-be to nine clinics in different regions. On three occasions doctors were reported to have offered to arrange abortions after the pregnant women said they did not want the baby because of its sex.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105105/Doctors-agree-abort-babies-wrong-sex.html#ixzz24LHZ8sdd

    The same thing occurs here. But since the press is unwilling to investigate these stings are performed by pro-life groups. Such as one fairly recent one at Planned Parenthood’s premiere abortion facility in Manhattan. The staff their didn’t blink when they were asked to abort girls because they were the wrong gender.

    Of course, the press here simply slammed the pro-life groups. As if the pro-abortion groups here have higher moral standards than in the UK.

    ‘Pregnant women have asked for terminations because they did not want their holidays spoilt’

    The Abortion Act, intended as a humane response to hardship, has been subverted by changing times.

    Pro-abortion groups ask for “life,” “health,” and “mental health” exemptions to laws that would place any sort of restrictions on abortion. Then subvert the intention of those laws with equal disdain for human life as they do in the UK.

    You would not have to look far for an abortion provider who would be willing to classify a woman’s desire not to have pregnancy spoil her beach look on that long-planned vacation as a threat to her mental well being.

    The discovery that sexually selected termination of pregnancy is available in Britain should surprise no one; and if we are surprised, it can only be because we have not been paying attention for the past 40 years. Sexually selected termination is, after all, the natural result and logical extension of the way the Abortion Act has been interpreted during all this time.

    Several consultants and what I suppose we must now call their customers have been caught in flagrante committing an illegal act that most people will find thoroughly distasteful…

    More than one friend of mine in the profession has told me that pregnant women have asked for terminations because they did not want their holidays spoilt by pregnancy – and they duly signed the forms…

    Of course, it is not difficult for someone to claim that the continuation of a pregnancy will harm her: all she has to do is threaten to take an overdose if it is not terminated. But if we take a latitudinarian view of what constitutes harm to mental health, there is no way of distinguishing between permissible and impermissible termination. A woman who wants a male child but not a female one can claim that a girl will harm her mental health while a boy will improve it. Anyone can ruin his own mental health if he wants to do so. Indeed, the very notion of mental health makes us ever more fragile…

    …According to this argument, women have the right to an abortion simply because they want it, for good, bad or no reason…

    Does anyone really believe that women here consistently make their decision to abort their child on any more serious considerations than women in Britain?

    Does anyone think it would bother Barack Obama to find out, not that I believe he doesn’t know already, that many women aren’t making a difficult choice to terminate a pregnancy but instead do so for the most frivolous of reasons?

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  28. Rape is an evolved behavior, what is it we’re channeling Catherine Mckinnon now, it is an aberration, of human behavior, not a standard practice.

    narciso (ee31f1)

  29. Ryan couldn’t explain why rape needed to be defined as forcible rape, and neither can you.

    Dummy.

    It’s a distinction, as you know, from violation of a statutory prohibition such as a person deemed too young to consent, but who is in fact a willing participant, however much his or her will is legally and factually incompetent.

    Is there a difference between robbery and burglary? Yeah. Kind of like that. In both cases property is stolen: one involves force, the other doesn’t.

    This isn’t rocket science.

    Random (dd401a)

  30. Thanks (sarcasm), Patterico, DRJ, JD, Karl, XRLQ, Sthashiu, for telling me that Random was Christoph. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIrGMMmsRgc

    nk (875f57)

  31. Rape is an evolved behavior, what is it we’re channeling Catherine Mckinnon now, it is an aberration, of human behavior, not a standard practice.

    Comment by narciso — 8/22/2012 @ 10:20 pm

    It’s an evolved, aberrant behavior. Like murder is. War for that matter (say aggressive wars of conquest if not noble just wars if you like).

    Several deviations from the mean are nonetheless evolved behaviors because they helped pass on genes under certain circumstances.

    Nature didn’t pass on one set of behaviors. It passed on whole bunches, some of which we like and others not.

    Random (dd401a)

  32. aunursa

    It’s everyone’s fault except the clown who spouts off misogynist nonsense because he doesn’t know basic medical facts about what is supposedly an extremely important issue to him

    .

    You need to educate yourself about what really happens in a forcible (which is when the victum is beaten and beaten badly) rape – first and I have worked in a DA’s office at a high level – they first dont always ejaculate inside the vic, second there is swelling, blood, bruising, stress, trama.

    Many rape pregancies were from drugged or passed out women or when several men rape them – which – thank god – is rare. We were not required to keep stats on rape pregnancies according to type. (assault, stat, date, acquaintance, corecion, incest) etc,

    Your mischaracterisation of this man who has never been accused of what you said in your statement says more than enough of what you know about the “medical facts” – this was a pro abortion voter/reporter/democrat/reporter – drilling him on Ryans bill – not for the news – but for Claire Bear

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  33. Where Christoph is, I don’t is. Humiliation.

    nk (875f57)

  34. Thanks (sarcasm), Patterico, DRJ, JD, Karl, XRLQ, Sthashiu, for telling me that Random was Christoph.

    I have no proof, other than that it sounds exactly precisely 100% like him.

    Patterico (83033d)

  35. EPJW, Akin didn’t claim that men who don’t ejaculate in women or who use condoms during rape for that matter rarely cause women to become pregnant. That would be an odd thing to mention, but factually sound.

    He said the women’s body defends her somehow against unwanted semen, which is ridiculous. At best, it can be said that a woman having an orgasm increases odds of conception some. So there’s that.

    Random (dd401a)

  36. It is so.

    Random (dd401a)

  37. “… first and I have worked in a DA’s office at a high level …”

    Oh, please. Not this World of Commander McBragg nonsense again from EPWJ.

    Like I have written before, he is just DCSCA without spell check.

    Guy probably used the bathroom in a Federal Building.

    Look, EPWJ: you are a very, very weird dude. Your history of posts are bizarre, inconsistent, and frequently dishonest.

    I would prefer it if you not write about rape this evening. Given your history, it’s just a bit much.

    Simon Jester (4b3e14)

  38. Any way the creep can be sent back to Australia, again?

    nk (875f57)

  39. Christoph?
    Well, I guess Canada has to revisit that work-release program after all.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434)

  40. EPWJ,

    You type at an eighth grade level, yet you sit there and attack Paul Ryan’s grammar ? What’s next, for an encore, are you going to start lecturing Ryan about physical fitness ?

    Just as the only people who trash Reagan, Ryan, and Ted Cruz are Democrats, the only people in America who want Todd Akin to remain in the race are…Democrats !
    EPWJ, you sure do have a lot of shared interests as Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.

    It’s funny how you claim that Akin is a great guy, but then you turn around and attempt to smear Ryan for having allegedly worked on legislation with “Great Guy” Akin in the House.
    According to my Algebra, the fact that Ryan worked with Akin should elevate Ryan in YOUR estimation—yet it somehow is cause for you to diminish Ryan yet again.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  41. Either he’s being paid or bribed by Democrats to stay in the race…

    … or he thinks he’s the modern-day version of abolitionist John Brown (with his Harper’s Ferry insurrection and all that jazz).

    Either way, he’s arrogant, delusional, and not worthy of being a Senator.

    theduchessofkitty (109031)

  42. Google is your friend, but enemy to your eyes. Fat, short, ugly Canadian with goatee, on top of shorter, fat, Abo.

    nk (875f57)

  43. you always have your lifeydoodles what will put their love of (other people’s) fetus in front of love of country

    whatever you want to call these freaks, it’s for sure not “patriot”

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  44. _____________________________________________

    Abortions available to sodomized Christian virgins only

    It’s a laugh when anyone on the left implies that the socio-cultural topic of both rape and, in turn, abortion has been exploited by the right. Certainly when just about all feminists of our hip, modern era are dyed-in-the-wool liberals.

    drtraycehansen.com:

    “Rape isn’t about sex!” That’s what feminists proclaim. And they’ve declared it so continuously and persuasively over the last few decades, most of our society have come to believe it. The fact is, it’s not true—it’s a myth. Rape used to be considered an act of sexual assault — “sexual” being the operative word — perpetrated by a man of weak moral character and criminal inclination. But this commonsense truth has been replaced with a politically-motivated myth that has had long-reaching, negative effects on both rape victims and society.

    The politicization of rape, and the denial of truth it required, was spearheaded by feminists in the early 1970s. Since then they’ve worked diligently to transform the way society views rape. Specifically, feminists want rape to be seen as a politically motivated crime rather than a sexually motivated one.

    [T]he feminists’ denial of any difference between male and female sexuality [is], because, in their lexicon, different means inferior. Thus, since these feminist women couldn’t identify in themselves a sexual urge to rape, then rape by men must also be other than sexually motivated.

    [M]ost importantly, feminists strategically concluded that if rape was perceived as motivated “only” by sex, then it would be of limited political value, but if instead rape was seen as motivated by male desire to dominate and control women, then it could be used as a powerful political tool for radical cultural change.

    Slate.com, February 2011:

    In some states, like New Jersey, the phrase sexual assault has simply replaced the word rape in the statute books. In others, like Pennsylvania, rape requires the use or threat of force, whereas sexual assault refers to any act of intercourse without consent…. In Washington state, among others, sexual assault comprises a broad set of acts that include anything from rape to “crimes with a sexual motivation.”

    In other states, neither the word rape nor the phrase sexual assault appears in the law. South Carolina refers to rape as “criminal sexual conduct,” and Florida calls it “sexual battery.” But as a general rule, a sexual assault is one that involves some form of unwanted penetration. Mere fondling is also a crime, but it’s usually called criminal sexual contact or something similar.

    The phrase sexual assault has been in use for more than a century, and 19th-century writers seem to have used it synonymously with rape. But it didn’t become a legal term until the 1960s, when a reform movement swept across the country. Under the English common law definition, which dates back to at least 1847, rape was limited to the forcible vaginal penetration of a woman against her will by a man other than her husband. Any other form of sex crime had to be prosecuted as simple assault or battery and was rarely prosecuted at all.

    Many feminists wanted to get rid of the word rape altogether, because it carried too much cultural baggage. They felt that Americans viewed rape as a crime of sexual passion rather than one of violence. There was also, in their view, a prevailing feeling that women bore some of the blame for dressing or behaving provocatively. The phrase sexual assault, which was adopted unevenly across the country, had the ring of unprovoked violence about it.

    Mark (18b242)

  45. Would Akin be a better Senator than Claire McCaskill? Yes, just compare their voting records in Congress.

    nonsense. Dumb-ass Claire won’t tard up the Team R brand six ways to Sunday.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  46. He does not seem to know basic biology. He ascribes to some sort of make believe world.

    pat (0833d4)

  47. 41. Either he’s being paid or bribed by Democrats to stay in the race…

    … or he thinks he’s the modern-day version of abolitionist John Brown (with his Harper’s Ferry insurrection and all that jazz).

    Either way, he’s arrogant, delusional, and not worthy of being a Senator.

    Comment by theduchessofkitty — 8/22/2012 @ 10:44 pm

    CBS reports:

    In a potential sign of his strategy, Akin appealed Tuesday to Christian evangelicals, anti-abortion activists and anti-establishment Republicans. He said he remains the best messenger to highlight respect for life and liberty that he contends are crumbling under the big-government policies of President Obama.

    One would think that someone who has to tap into his campaign war chest to buy ads to apologize for his previous statements, and say that despite the impression he previously made he really does believe rape is a horrendous crime would get a clue that he’s not even a below average messenger for anything. Let alone the best.

    But no. Not Todd Akin.

    He appeared on the Today Show, and Matt Lauer asked him a version of that very question. If he can’t articulate his views, how does he imagine he’ll be an effective spokesman for those views in the Senate?

    You can see video of the interview here:

    National Review Online-The Corner: Akin Takes Verbal Diarrhea to ‘Today’ Show

    As you can imagine from the title, he demonstrates a level of cluelessness, concerning all aspects of the reality of the situation which clearly escape him, that defies belief.

    Given the above choices, I vote for John Brown-type delusions.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  48. 45. Would Akin be a better Senator than Claire McCaskill? Yes, just compare their voting records in Congress.

    nonsense. Dumb-ass Claire won’t tard up the Team R brand six ways to Sunday.

    Comment by happyfeet — 8/22/2012 @ 11:01 pm

    In a very real way, she’s already tarded up the brand.

    She picked the GOP’s candidate. Not the “party bosses” as Akin cluelessly believes is what’s going on now. Not the voters, as Akin cluelessly claims happened.

    After all, he got about 1/3 of 1/2 of the electorate to vote his way. Thanks largely due to McCaskill’s financial support.

    If the CBS report I linked to earlier is accurate, Akin is only staying in to see if he can garner financial support. And he will. From McCaskill again. And probably from Planned Parenthood. They, too, are delighted to have him running against McCaskill.

    So win or lose, McCaskill has definitely tarded up the GOP brand. She successfully maneuvered to make sure the one GOP candidate that could snatch defeat from what should have been the maw of sure victory became “our guy.”

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  49. i can’t really argue with that

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  50. Just because Akin is too stupid to be a US Senator does not mean that McCaskill is any brighter.

    Ans what’s up with the EPWJ? He still claims to be a Republican, but the next instance of him behaving like one will be the first. Is he so insecure that he has to continue to pose? Or is the pose all he’s got?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  51. As I understand it, Akin is now running an insurgency against the godless Republicans.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  52. Patterico: Because he’s an idiot.

    But how many candidates (and members of Congress?) are idiots, and nobody notices?

    This guy has been in Congress since the 2000 election.

    Sammy Finkelman (2178a8)

  53. Nice blog right here! Additionally your site lots up very fast! What host are you the use of? Can I get your associate hyperlink for your host? I want my site loaded up as quickly as yours lol

    hyipnew365.com (f5091a)

  54. I used to be recommended this blog by way of my cousin. I am not certain whether or not this publish is written by way of him as nobody else recognize such exact approximately my difficulty. You’re wonderful! Thank you!

    Poetry (9c7519)

  55. If being stupid was a disqualifier to serving in Congress then Congress would be pretty much empty.

    Ralph Gizzip (5ab3ea)

  56. “While every notable pundit who lives in the real world has agreed that Akin must go…”

    Well, that’s nice. Maybe we ought to let self-appointed pundits decide who is fit to seek or hold public office.

    That would relieve the electorate of undertaking irksome tasks like making up their own minds and voting.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  57. First, don’t forget the Dems funded Akin in the primaries because MO is one of those freaks of nature – an “open” primary state.

    Second, as Rumsfeld might say, “You go to war with the candidate you have.” In the event Akin stays in the race, he needs to go all in and run a “Dump Claire” campaign. As Obi Wan would says, “It’s his only hope.” He may need to explain that his views on abortion are extreme to protect life and not kill humans and go onto to the economy. Even things like if we hadn’t killed so many babies we’d have enough workers to help solve the deficit.

    Of course, the guy seems a bit dense and he may not take any advise but his own.

    cedarhill (66f045)

  58. Thank GOD that once again you have stopped by to be helpful, Dave.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  59. That’s a GOOD strategy, cedarhill!
    “Hello, my name is Todd Akin, and I approved this message.
    Some people say that my views on abortion are extreme — well, they are!”
    That’s a winner right there, yessir.

    Even things like if we hadn’t killed so many babies we’d have enough workers to help solve the deficit.
    — Because, when revenues are down, due to a slower economy, we all know that the solution is to have even MORE people on the unemployment rolls; right?

    Congratulations. You’ve just thought of two MORE ways by which he can guarantee his defeat.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  60. Did you post that link as some sort of proof as to why Akin should stay in?

    Icy (9bbab7)

  61. Akin should go but once again like 2010, Conservatives over investing time ripping apart a better option over doing so to the inferior one.

    While appreciate Conservatives having “standards” I still think it better to win the race than rip apart the (R) Candidate. The time to toss these morons is during primaries.

    Ya think (D) is apologising for Al Franken? Joe Biden? LOL.

    To quote Cervantes in how best to manage this situation … “Si vos quieres que yo crea lo que tu viste en el cielo, yo quiero que tu creas lo que yo vi en la cueva den Montesino.”

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  62. Yay. I love commenting in foreign languages.

    “Αν θέλετε να πιστέψω αυτό που είδε στον ουρανό, θέλω να πιστεύω ό, τι είδα στο σπήλαιο den Montesino.”

    nk (875f57)

  63. I know this off Akin but I have never understood why the

    Born-Alive Infants Protection Act.

    Is even needed. As soon as the baby leaves the woman’s body if it is alive, breathing with a heartbeat, why is not setting it aside to die not

    Negligent Homicide with calous indiference and I agree

    hat’s a bigger deal than a dumb gaffe about “legitimate rape.”

    It used to be only primitive barbaric societies exposed unwanted infants to die, and civilized societies considered such activities to be abominations

    Dan Kauffman (27c54a)

  64. “If you want me to believe what you saw in the sky, I want you to believe what I saw in the cave den Montesino.”

    nk (875f57)

  65. No law is needed for those who have a sword, a shield-bearer and a skerry; or wergild, Dan.

    Oops, sorry, I was reading my 7th century lawbook.

    nk (875f57)

  66. It used to be only primitive barbaric societies exposed unwanted infants to die, and civilized societies considered such activities to be abominations

    So why is the Dalai Lama allowed a visa into the United States?

    Now that is OT.

    nk (875f57)

  67. I got a lot of grief from the “child-protectors”, here, one time, for saying a teenager who gave birth alone and whose child died for lack of post-natal care was not a criminal who should be prosecuted but a victim who should be protected.

    nk (875f57)

  68. If that story is true, narciso:

    “Forcible rape” is a tautology.

    Rape is lack of consent. Period. Including disability, as defined by law, to grant consent due to age.

    nk (875f57)

  69. If that story is true, narciso:

    “Forcible rape” is a tautology.

    Rape is lack of consent. Period. Including disability, as defined by law, to grant consent due to age.

    nk (875f57)

  70. If that story is true. I do not believe the MFM.

    nk (875f57)

  71. If you’re attempting to reignite that old fight, try though you might, I refuse to bite.

    So, bite me.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  72. As JD likes to say, EPWJ has now truly descended into self-parody.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  73. btw, lets not forget that a false claim of rape, underpinned Norma McCorvey (Roe) petition to the Dallas authorities (Wade)

    narciso (ee31f1)

  74. No, Icy, I’m not. I don’t think Aching is worth a lot of fuss, either, but what else can you talk about in 10 lazy minutes? 😉

    nk (875f57)

  75. That was pretty good rhyme, assonance and meter, though, BTW.

    nk (875f57)

  76. I think that still sleeeeepy wants Paul Ryan to describe what he means by “forcible rape” slowly and in detail, and using his sexy voice.

    I don’t judge him for that, though.

    Also, I suspect that describing rape in evolutionary terms would not actually be very persuasive to Mr. Akin; I’m not entirely certain, but I suspect that such an argument would hold no water at all with him.

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  77. 76. Hmm, I forgot.

    62, 64, 66. Now I don’t feel quite so opaque.

    68. The Spartans were primitive and barbaric–Athenians. Fortunately, the former saved their homophilic butts.

    anybody gulrud (dd7d4e)

  78. Let’s see, Castle, O’Donnell & Akin. Whom to choose? Limit ourselves to the positives.

    {}.

    anybody gulrud (dd7d4e)

  79. A meeting of Akin in FL with donors is apparently garnering him some support:

    http://minx.cc/?post=332169

    anybody gulrud (dd7d4e)

  80. Comparing Athenians to Spartans is like comparing New Yorkers to Texans. Neither were homophilic, they both knew how babies were made and they needed hoplites to control their slaves. At teenage age boys f____d boys because girls were forbidden to them before marriage, and boys do what boys do.

    Athens was Ionian and Sparta was Dorian. Corinth was Dorian too. Go learn.

    nk (875f57)

  81. He doesn’t just need to repudiate the remark, he needs to figure out how he came to know what ain’t so.

    Then he needs to repudiate whatever that was, and figure out how to begin to educate himself about the basic facts of important issues that he’s going to speak about. He needs to keep his knowledge current and accurate, not just reinforce his prejudices.

    This wasn’t misspeaking. This was fundamentally flawed habits and thought processes being publicly revealed.

    Peter B (5dbfe0)

  82. Icy- way beyond parody at this point.

    JD (603efd)

  83. Not my fave, but Gabe on the Campaign in light of the outcast:

    “So Democrats want to make the race about abortion? Alright, let’s go there. We should definitely keep hammering the economy, but a few ads highlighting Obama’s support for third trimester abortions should do nicely in say, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin.”

    anybody gulrud (dd7d4e)

  84. And it’s actually “homophilophylos” — “homo” = same; philo=love/like; phylo=phylum/like kind.

    Greek is just as hard written as spoken. Make whatever pun you want.

    nk (875f57)

  85. Peter B he was going on this http://www.christianliferesources.com/article/rape-pregnancies-are-rare-461

    remember all abortion science has become as political as climate change science on both sides

    Even if this is wrong doesnt necessarily mean the others sides stats are any more accurate

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  86. Soory about the bold..

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  87. I’m glad you know what you’re talking about, ancient one.

    anybody gulrud (dd7d4e)

  88. Eugene F. Diamond, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Past Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, wrote in the “To the Editor” section of the April 11, 1985 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine:

    Pregnancy is rare after a single act of forcible rape. In a prospective study of 4000 rapes in Minnesota, there were no pregnancies. In a retrospective study covering nine years in Chicago, there were no pregnancies. In a prospective study of 117 rapes there were no pregnancies among either the 17 victims who received DES or the 100 who did not.

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  89. Comment by Icy — 8/23/2012 @ 5:00 am

    So, You gonna vote for Claire? The point is he needs clever folks like you if he stays in the race. The thing about cut and run is you have no fear of ever winning.

    cedarhill (66f045)

  90. 91. Interesting, then the ‘exception’ push is really a ‘loophole’ rush.

    anybody gulrud (dd7d4e)

  91. Comment by EPWJ — 8/23/2012 @ 7:47 am

    Eric, you are fword f-upped. Bye bye, troll/moby.

    nk (875f57)

  92. EPWJ is dummerer than a sack of tyes.

    JD (603efd)

  93. I for one am all in favor of the brilliant new Democrat campaign strategy to distract from Obama’s record which will be unveiled at their convention:

    VAGINAS: WHO ARE THEY AND WHAT DO THEY WANT?

    Even better than “Hope and Change,” doncha think?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  94. nk

    I’m sorry I upset you – it wasn’t intentional – here are some of the sources – I am wondering where the sources for the other side are though..

    [1] “Section II: Crime Index Offenses Reported”. FBI, 1996 and Kelly. L., Lovett, J., Regan, L. (2005). “A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases”. Home Office Research Study 293. London: Home Office. Lonsway, Kimberley A.; Aschambault, Joanne; Lisak, David (2009). “False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issue to Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault”. The Voice 3 (1): 1–11. Cybulska, B. (July 2007). “Sexual assault: key issues”. J R Soc Med 100 (7): 321–4. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.7.321. PMC 1905867. PMID 17606752. [sources cited in Wikipedia entry on “Rape Statistics”

    [2] Rape-related pregnancy: estimates and descriptive characteristics from a national sample of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:320-324

    [3] Yuzpe AA, Smith RP, Rademaker AW. A multicenter clinical investigation employing ethinyl estradiol combined with dl-norgestrel as postcoital contraceptive agent. Fertil Steril 1982;37:508-513

    [4]http://www.emedicinehealth.com/effectiveness_rate_of_birth_control_methods-health/article_em.htm

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  95. and who the hell is the American Journal of OBGYM anyway? Especially when we have someone to throw under a bus?

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  96. You all do realize that the abortion debate has been a cynical political exercise for the last 20 or so years, don’t you?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  97. that source is cited in at least 600 or more Medical research papers by organizations such as JaMA,AJPM, NEJM,

    yeah what the F*** do these people know!!!

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADFA_enUS496US496&q=Rape-related+pregnancy%3a+estimates+and+descriptive+characteristics+from+a+national+sample+of+women.+Am+J+Obstet+Gynecol+1996%3b175%3a320-324
    We will win in Missouri

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  98. We?!

    JD (603efd)

  99. Gee-and it seems like only last week Eric was hells-afire gung-ho for concentrating all “our” time and money and effort on “taking” the senate. Oh wait! It *was* only last week.

    elissa (50b427)

  100. Ah …. The Stupid Party … never fails to fail’

    Imagine if a reporter asked Akin for his views on evolution …

    Gerry (758808)

  101. EPWJ,

    The only conservatives you publicly support are the ones who lose primaries (Perry 4 Pres, Dewhurst 4 Senate) or one such as Todd Akin, who is destined to lose to Democrat Claire McCaskill after promoting junk science on television.

    You don’t support conservatives in general elections who can win.

    And you don’t embrace conservatives who have already won elections.

    At the end of the day, you seem to have a lot in common with Nancy Pelosi. Just like you, she wants Akin to stay in the race, she also thinks Reagan was a dummy, and she, too, thinks Paul Ryan is a danger to the country.

    You may or may not be a Nancy-boy, but you sure do sound like a Nancy Pelosi !

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  102. This is a very good paper, it is exhaustedly sourced.

    It is copyright protected but published by the Hawaiian Department of Education

    http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Care_of_the_Female_Adolescent_Rape_Victim.pdf

    700,000 rape victims per year 60 to 70% under the age of 18.

    Chances of rape in the case of assault – less than 5% – even lesser in violent assault.

    Okay so that makes people seem insensitive? Its science and facts

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  103. Defends Akin. Scozzafava is a true conservative. Savages Palin. Attacks Cruz.

    JD (603efd)

  104. “It is very rare I come to an event where I’m like the fifth or sixth most interesting person. Usually the folks want to take a picture with me, sit next to me, talk to me. That has not been the case at this event and I completely understand.”

    – Barack Hussein Milhouse 0bama

    Colonel Haiku (9af2e0)

  105. I’d have more repect for Eric if he’d just be honest and come out of the closet, so to speak. Not much respect, but a little. You’ll note he never actually denies that he is a troll or a moby–at least never has as far as I can recall.

    elissa (50b427)

  106. “P.S. It’s worth remembering that Barack would apparently allow women and their doctors to kill their babies at any moment until they’re born — and perhaps (through medical neglect) even after birth. I would venture to say that’s a bigger deal than a dumb gaffe about ‘legitimate rape.’ ”

    Obama’s was an off the cuff remark. There has never been and will never be a policy matching the one you describe.
    aheartbreakingchoice.com
    womensenews.org/story/campaign-trail/041028/late-term-abortion-saved-these-womens-lives

    Akins “gaffe” begins in a belief promoted by this man:
    http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=95674
    With Romney in 2008:”Welcoming Dr. Willke’s announcement, Governor Romney said, “I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country.”

    And in 2012:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-election/9493653/US-election-Mitt-Romney-met-Todd-Akin-doctor-John-Willke-during-2012-campaign.html

    And Akin might win
    theweek.com/article/index/232320/5-reasons-todd-akin-might-actually-still-win-in-missouri

    Republican respect for “the sanctity of life”

    still sleeeeepy (b5f718)

  107. estone

    Perry and Dewhurst are supported by most of the people on this site except JD, ICY, Col, and Daleyrocks, and that should tell you all you need to know.

    Tom Coburn I follow.

    Fred Thompson, good guy and neighbor.

    Hank Williams, another local.

    Haslam the Gov – in a few weeks I have a proposal for a pro bono project to bring jobs to tennessee from overseas – last I checked – he wasnt a liberal.

    Cornyn appointed my daughter to West Point. He is an expat kid as well, so he understands.

    Gen Dempsey who my family had dinner with more than once, just admonished these ex navy seals for the exact same reasons I did..

    I just got back from attending a fundraising for Corker

    Keep on burying your head in the sand…

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  108. So, You gonna vote for Claire? The point is he needs clever folks like you if he stays in the race. The thing about cut and run is you have no fear of ever winning.
    Comment by cedarhill — 8/23/2012 @ 7:49 am

    — I don’t live in Missouri. I was just pointing out how wrong-headed your ideas are.

    You wrote: “He may need to explain that his views on abortion are extreme to protect life and not kill humans”.
    — The problem with this is that he should have made his stance clear AT THE TIME OF THE INTERVIEW THAT CAUSED THIS CONTROVERSY IN THE FIRST PLACE! All he had to say in answer to that question was “I believe that life begins at conception, and I encourage all women with unplanned pregnancies to consider adoption as an alternative to abortion.” That’s it!

    But he didn’t.

    You wrote: “Even things like if we hadn’t killed so many babies we’d have enough workers to help solve the deficit.”
    — Okay, on this one you’re just not thinking things through. Yes, having more people in the workforce will generate more tax revenue which the government, if it chooses to, can use to reduce the deficit; BUT, the solution to our current situation isn’t to produce more workers, it is exactly the opposite. We already have more workers than we have available jobs; you have to have more jobs available before you can call for the ‘production’ of more workers.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  109. elissa

    I am who I am. Trying to paint me as something I am not could be taken as an admission that I am right and that you ARE AGREEING with me – but just cant come on out uyourself.

    the more of us who voice our objection to Romney the more chances they will call on him to step down.

    Really? We are voting for the progressive governor who invented Obamacare and we have to delude ourselves to believe Romney will repeal Obamacare even though he is now saying he wont repeal Obamacare without replacing it with better Obamacare?

    You all really want to go with that?

    Rather see 4 years of Obama shoved into a corner by to Republican houses of Congress…

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  110. Icy

    He did – it just wasnt aired……
    did you see the full quote?

    dude take a deep breath

    EPWJ (2a58f7)

  111. Hey, elissa: look back through the thread and you will discover that EPWJ now claims to have worked closely with a DA’s office (“high up” is the terminology).

    He also got pretty clinical about “rape.”

    Jeez.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  112. “…Rather see 4 years of Obama…”

    Fixed that for you, EPWJ.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  113. “Perry and Dewhurst are supported by most of the people on this site except JD, ICY, Col, and Daleyrocks, and that should tell you all you need to know.”

    EPWJ – Perry is not even supported by a majority of Texans. What does that tell you? Sto misrepresenting the positions of others.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  114. “Hey, elissa: look back through the thread and you will discover that EPWJ now claims to have worked closely with a DA’s office (“high up” is the terminology).”

    Simon – I thought he meant above the 5th floor or something.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  115. Obama’s was an off the cuff remark. There has never been and will never be a policy matching the one you describe.
    Comment by still sleeeeepy — 8/23/2012 @ 8:45 am

    On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.” Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, “then this would be an anti-abortion statute.”
    Sure sounds “off the cuff” to me. *eye roll*

    By the way, f***ing liar, have you found the ‘proof’ that Paul Ryan tried to ban in-vitro fertilization, yet? What are you waiting for?

    Icy (9bbab7)

  116. Icy
    He did – it just wasnt aired……
    did you see the full quote?
    dude take a deep breath
    Comment by EPWJ — 8/23/2012 @ 8:53 am

    — No, I didn’t. Why don’t you link it for me? Right now.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  117. ==the more of us who voice our objection to Romney the more chances they will call on him to step down== EPWJ8/23/2012 @ 8:51 am

    Diagnosis: delusional character, exacerbated by illusions of grandeur.

    ==I am who I am. Trying to paint me as something I am not could be taken as an admission that I am right and that you ARE AGREEING with me – but just cant come on out uyourself== EPWJ 8/23/2012 @ 8:51 am

    You know I’m just going to take my chances that nobody here will view any of my comments as an admission that you are right and that I am agreeing with you. For reals. I’ll not be worrying about that– at all.

    elissa (50b427)

  118. Perry and Dewhurst are supported by most of the people on this site except JD, ICY, Col, and Daleyrocks, and that should tell you all you need to know.

    — Not true! I support Perry and Dewhurst . . . as Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Texas, respectively.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  119. ______________________________________________

    Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would “forbid abortions to take place.”

    Merely another illustration of Obama’s gut instincts being ultra-liberal. He’s way more to the left than Akin is to the right. And if Obama is reelected in November — God forbid — that will say quite a bit about what this country has become. Or that its electorate has wishes that really aren’t too different from those of Obama’s former pal and close adviser, Jeremiah Wright.

    Mark (18b242)

  120. EPWJ,

    You’re not fooling anyone with your “some of my best friends are Joooos” claims.

    You’ve insulted Reagan’s intelligence, and you trashed Paul Ryan and Ted Cruz.
    That is the behavior of a liberal.

    C’mon, cowboy, even Anderson Cooper came out of the closet, so to speak.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  121. icy
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/born-alive-baloney/
    “Illinois law has long stated that if an abortion is performed when the fetus is deemed to be viable, the doctor must:
    Choose the method of abortion least likely to harm the fetus.
    Have in attendance a second doctor who can immediately take over care of the child if it’s born alive.
    Use every available means to keep any born-alive child living and healthy.
    To do otherwise constitutes a Class 3 felony, which carries a sentence of two to five years in prison. That’s been the law in Illinois since 1975, two years before Jessen was born. What Obama voted against was legislation that would have extended the law’s protection to any aborted fetus that shows any sign of life, even if doctors are certain that it cannot survive.”

    On the other let’s not quibble
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/17/ultraviolet/womens-group-says-paul-ryan-would-outlaw-vitro-fer/

    “Bioethicists agreed that the bill, if it became law, would pose serious challenges for the procedure.

    “If this law passed, it would not outlaw IVF, but it would make it next to impossible to do,” said Arthur Caplan, who heads the division of medical ethics in the department of population health at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “It would not allow any destruction of embryos, and since nearly all IVF depends on the overproduction of embryos the law would drastically alter how IVF is done, raising the cost of doing it and hugely decreasing the success rate.”

    I. Glenn Cohen, co-director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology, and Bioethics at Harvard Law School, agreed. By his reading, a reproductive technology process that involved “the destruction of a human species member after fertilization can be criminalized and treated equivalent to killing an already-born human being,” Cohen said.

    Legal questions

    But while it’s clear that the traditional practice of in vitro fertilization could be severely affected if the bill became law, it’s too strong to say, as UltraViolet did, that the bill would “outlaw in vitro fertilization.”

    Outlawing the creation of embryos, the necessary first step, “isn’t part of the bill,” said Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

    Kermit Roosevelt, a constitutional law specialist at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, agreed. “I could see this leading to prohibitions on destroying unwanted embryos created for the purpose of IVF, but I’m not sure why that would ban the practice entirely,” Roosevelt said.”

    still sleeeeepy (b5f718)

  122. Elephant Stone, EPWJ is actually to the right of many of us here — so much so that he views Sarah Palin as “not conservative”, and cannot see Akin’s flaws at all because Akin is 100% pro-life.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  123. Comment by Icy — 8/23/2012 @ 9:33 am

    EPWJ is not to the right of anyone here.

    Gerald A (f26857)

  124. That’s very interesting, still sleeeeepy. Now tell me, WHERE in the text of the bill that Ryan, along with 61 other Congresspersons, co-sponsored (not “sponsored,” as you lied) does it say that the practice of in-vitro fertilization shall be ‘banned’?

    “Illinois law has long stated that if an abortion is performed when the fetus is deemed to be viable, the doctor must:
    Choose the method of abortion least likely to harm the fetus.

    — Really.
    And WHAT, exactly, is the “method” of killing a fetus that is “least likely to harm” it?

    What Obama voted against was legislation that would have extended the law’s protection to any aborted fetus that shows any sign of life, even if doctors are certain that it cannot survive.”
    — And you’re okay with that?

    Icy (9bbab7)

  125. Extremely premature babies are, in many cases, deemed unlikely to survive, but that doesn’t stop medical professionals from exerting every possible effort to derive a positive outcome.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  126. Still searching for that “full quote”, Eric?

    Icy (9bbab7)

  127. still sleeeeepy – Is there any truth to the rumor that the Democrats will have a Rockettes type chorus line of dancing vaginas at their convention? I know you guys can’t get enough of those costumes and that would be a special kind of treat on national prime time television. Please tell me it’s true.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  128. EPWJ,

    You claim to have attended a fundraiser for Bob Corker ?

    He’s not exactly on the far right wing—he’s kind of in the middle of the party.

    So you’ll give money to Corker at the same time you trash Reagan, Palin, Ryan, and Ted Cruz as “not conservative enough.”

    Dude, you’re a liberal.
    Give up the facade.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  129. If not a Liberal, at least a Fool.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  130. Uh, he said he attended–didn’t say he gave money to Corker, ES. I assumed if Eric was in fact at the Corker fundraiser that he was working for the caterer of that event as a busboy or car parker. (or maybe as a license plate photog for Dem oppo research)

    elissa (50b427)

  131. I’m glad you expanded on that in the end, elissa.
    “(B)usboy” or “car-parker” would require skill-sets that may be beyond our khat fancier.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  132. So, Rasmussen has McCaskill up by 10%.

    Is he done yet, or do we have to go to the Downfall videos?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  133. There is a reason why rape is psychologically and emotionally traumatic. Why Men Rape.

    Analysis of the data showed that young women suffered greater distress after a rape than did children or women who were past reproductive age. That finding makes evolutionary sense, because it is young women who were at risk of being impregnated by an undesirable mate. Married women, moreover, were more traumatized than unmarried women, and they were more likely to feel that their future had been harmed by the rape. That, too, makes evolutionary sense, because the doubt a rape sows about paternity can lead a long-term mate to withdraw his support

    [T]he psychological pain that rape victims suffer appears to be an evolved defense against rape. The human females who outreproduced others and thus became our ancestors were people who were highly distressed about rape. Their distress presumably served their interests by motivating them to identify the circumstances that resulted in the rape, assess the problems the rape caused, and act to avoid rapes in the future.

    If abortion is outlawed in case of rape, then we would be in essence, going against human evolution, against the behavior of our ancestors. We would be nullifying the purpose of the psychological and emotional trauma caused by rape, which is to defend against rape to defend female choice in a mate. And in the case of married women raped and impregnated by men not their husbands, we would be destroying their marriages due to doubts about paternity which can lead husbands to withdraw his support.

    Make no mistake, prohibiting abortion in case of rape would lead to more divorces, more broken families. We do not need that.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  134. I see still sleeeeepy is still lyyyyyying, this time regarding one of Obama’s many shifting excuses (and he used multiple excuses) for opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

    Obama and Infanticide

    Obama’s latest excuse for opposing the Illinois Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is that the law was “unnecessary” because babies surviving abortions were already protected. It won’t fly.

    In last night’s presidential debate, Sen. John McCain finally found an opportunity to confront Sen. Barack Obama on his vote against protecting children who were born alive after an attempted abortion. Obama’s response followed the pattern of his approach to this subject throughout the campaign: deny the facts and confuse the issue. He said:

    “There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.”

    Except, of course, when nurses reported the fact that babies who were born alive were discarded like medical waste to prosecutors, they declined because the law was entirely inadequate. The law in question, (720 ILCS 510/) Illinois Abortion Law of 1975, was written with loopholes you could drive a truck through so that it only appeared these babies were protected by law, when in fact it protected the abortionist from prosecution.

    But the facts of the born-alive debate tell a different story.

    A few years ago, after it became clear that some infants who were born alive in the course of an attempted induced abortion at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere were being left to die without even comfort care, Republicans and Democrats around the country united in an effort to make the practice illegal and declare that any child outside the womb, even if she was an abortion survivor whose prospects for long-term survival might be in doubt, was entitled to basic medical care. Even the most ardent advocates of the pro-choice position agreed that a child born alive, even after an attempted abortion, deserves humane treatment.

    Except of course Barack Obama. And still sleeeeepy.

    The tragic stories of infants being left to die moved legislators to act at both the state and federal levels. In Washington, D.C., consensus can be a rare commodity, and never more so than on the issue of abortion. But the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 was just such a rarity. The bill passed both houses of Congress without a single dissenting vote-it was 98-0 in the Senate-and numerous states then proceeded to enact similar measures. In Illinois, however, a series of efforts to pass “Born-Alive” legislation from 2001 to 2003 met with stiff resistance from legislators concerned the measure would constrain the right to abortion in the state. Prominent among these opponents, and the only one to actually speak in opposition to the bill when it was debated in 2002, was state Senator Barack Obama.

    Obama’s case against the bill did not revolve around existing state law, as he seemed to suggest last night. The law Obama referred to in the debate was the Illinois abortion statute enacted in 1975. But at the time of the debate about the Born Alive Act, the Illinois Attorney General had publicly stated that he could not prosecute incidents such as those reported by nurses at Christ Hospital in Chicago and elsewhere (including a baby left to die in a soiled linen closet) because the 1975 law was inadequate. It only protected “viable” infants-and left the determination of viability up to the “medical judgment” of the abortionist who had just failed to kill the baby in the womb. This provision of the law weakened the hand of prosecutors to the vanishing point. That is why the Born Alive Act was necessary-and everybody knew it. Moreover, the Born Alive Act would have had the effect of at least ensuring comfort care to babies whose prospects for long-term survival were dim and who might therefore have been regarded as “nonviable.” As Obama and the other legislators knew, without the Born Alive Act these babies could continue to be treated as hospital refuse. That’s how the dying baby that Nurse Jill Stanek found in the soiled linen closet got there.

    The bottom line here is that still sleeeeepy can refer to his left-wing propaganda “fact check” sites all he wants. The reason for the legislation, the legislation Obama actively opposed, was precisely because those infants were NOT protected by the Illinois law he says protected them. The legislation he opposed was designed to correct the multiple loopholes in the 1975 act.

    Obama opposed that. He did not want the infants; who were deliberately not protected by the 1975 pro-abortion ruse, protected by law.

    “As I understand it,” Obama said during the floor debate, “this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child however way you want to describe it—is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved.” This, he argued, was too much to ask of a doctor performing abortions, and it could also, as he put it, “burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.”

    Bottom line: Obama and his propagandists (factcheck and still sleeeeepy) claim the law was “unnecessary” since Illinois law already protected infants in question. “Infants in question” left to die in hospital utility closets prove them baldfaced liars.

    Rating of Obama/propagandist claim on real world truth-o-meter: pants on fire lie.

    When Obama was challenged to explain himself, earlier in this campaign, he at first insisted that he opposed the Born-Alive Act in Illinois because it didn’t have a neutrality clause. When critics contended that this claim was false, Obama accused them of “lying.” But then the critics produced indisputable documentary evidence that in fact Obama had voted against a bill that did include the neutrality clause. Obama had plainly misrepresented his record. Now he really had some explaining to do.

    But Obama still did not tell the truth last night.

    Obama is nothing but not consistent. When his critics tell the truth about him, he accuses them of “lying.” And when his accusation of “lying” turns out to be the lie, he comes up with a different excuse. Which also proves to be a lie.

    But that doesn’t matter to his lame propagandists like still sleeeeepy, who will argue against facts no matter how obvious.

    Since I’ve just demonstrated that he’s recycling a defense of Obama that was debunked moments after King Putt trotted out the lie in the 2008 Presidential debates, I believe that relieves me of the task of debunking his already debunked propaganda about Ryan.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  135. After that name-dropping autobiography by EPWJ, are we sure he isn’t Obama-in-drag? He certainly thinks highly of himself and isn’t afraid to say it in public.

    PatAZ (83729f)

  136. still sleeeeepy @125 – I am so happy that you continue your practice of including Greenwaldian links. Just click down one layer in your Factcheck link to a prior Factcheck post on the same subject where they call out Obama for being a liar based on his Illinois votes and public statements on the Born Alive Act.

    Another narrative fail, hack.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  137. Why does not Obama admit that the purpose of an abortion is a dead baby?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  138. “What Obama voted against was legislation that would have extended the law’s protection to any aborted fetus that shows any sign of life, even if doctors are certain that it cannot survive.”
    – And you’re okay with that?

    Comment by Icy — 8/23/2012 @ 9:51 am

    If it was the kind of propaganda he had to push to support Obama, he’d be OK with his dying “non-viable” elderly mother being discarded and left to die in a hospital utility closet.

    What are a few lives lost, dying cold, alone, and afraid alongside the rest of the medical waste when weighed against the need to reelect Barack Obama?

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  139. 141. Why does not Obama admit that the purpose of an abortion is a dead baby?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 8/23/2012 @ 10:58 am

    Two reasons. First, that would undermine the false rationale that the abortion enthusiasts had to employ to trick people into going along with the scheme. I.e. a feigned interest in solely terminating the pregnancy for a variety of compassionate-sounding reason.

    Second, that would have undermined the false narrative Axelrod et al was using to get his media creation elected in 2008. i.e. that Obama was a kind, decent man. They actually employed that meme to defend Obama against his morally repugnant attitude toward infants who survived the abortionist’s attempts to kill them.

    Some of Senator Obama’s supporters are now making one last, rather desperate-sounding attempt to defend his votes against protecting infants born alive after unsuccessful abortions. Their argument goes this way: Permitting children who survive attempted abortions to be abandoned is so heinous, so barbaric, that for someone to accuse Senator Obama, a decent man who is himself the father of two daughters, of supporting what amounts to legalized infanticide is too outrageous to merit an answer. There is a problem, though. In light of the documentary evidence that is now before the public, it is clear that the accusation against Senator Obama, however shocking, has the very considerable merit of being true.

    Steve57 (5797fd)

  140. Why does not Obama admit that the purpose of an abortion is a dead baby?

    Because it is the effect, not the purpose. Or do you assert that women get pregnant in order to have an abortion, because that’s how you get a dead baby?

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  141. I suppose this is better coming out now, rather than during the debates.

    I have doubts Akin would sound much smarter during televised debates.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  142. Comment by Icy — 8/23/2012 @ 8:48 am

    It’s great you don’t live in MO. Winning the Senate just makes Harry a minority leader. It will not get anything through the Senate. If Akin is all you have, you’d better support him. Go find 60 votes in the Senate come Feb. 1, 2013. And 2015. And 2017. Only until 2019 will Claire not be a loyal Harry Senator. Go figure a way to win with Akin. That is if one cares.

    cedarhill (66f045)

  143. #144 cutting it a bit thin huh?

    Rodney King's Spirit (aeda60)

  144. 146. “Winning the Senate just makes Harry a minority leader. It will not get anything through the Senate.”

    Then Akin will not help in any case. ‘Better than Mike Castle’ fail, he needs his career ended right here.

    If the continued exposure of Brunner and Steelman is the best to come of this, then so be it.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  145. 141. Why? Vermin hate the like, turn over a rock lately?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  146. If spouting “junk science” is the sine qua non in deciding worthiness to hold office, kindly explain all the tools who continue to say AGW is proven.

    Ed from SFV (81526c)

  147. 149. light*

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  148. Could EPWJ’s concern trolling be more obvious?

    SPQR (26be8b)

  149. No

    JD (042fda)

  150. Mike Huckabee backs Akin.

    Anyone really serious about the “born alive” fracas
    can go here.
    http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/08/bornalive.html

    otherwise just continue to lie.

    still sleeeeepy (b5f718)

  151. Comment by Icy — 8/23/2012 @ 8:48 am

    We already have more workers than we have available jobs; you have to have more jobs available before you can call for the ‘production’ of more workers.

    That is the “lump of labor” fallacy – in truth, in the long run, and also in the intermediate run, there are as many jobs as there are people looking for them and able to fill them (or trusted by others to fill them)

    The economy is not a board with so many pegs to fill – it is a circle, and people can insert themselves.

    When economists make projections for such things as Social security, nobody attempt to project the number of jobs – they project the number of people and the percentage of people who will work.

    Sammy Finkelman (2178a8)

  152. otherwise just continue to lie.
    Comment by still sleeeeepy — 8/23/2012 @ 12:55 pm

    — Says the f***ing liar.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  153. For someone claiming to be sleeeeeeeeeeeepy, sleepy sure is wound up. And a lying liar.

    JD (318f81)

  154. EPWJ, did you find that “full quote” by Akin yet?

    Icy (9bbab7)

  155. Sammy, isn’t it time for your nap?

    Icy (9bbab7)

  156. I think sleeeeepy and EPWJ are like Heath and Jake.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  157. C’mon, Icy. It’s like the Malkin thing with EPWJ. He reads minds. Or hears voices.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  158. “otherwise just continue to lie.
    Comment by still sleeeeepy — 8/23/2012 @ 12:55 pm”

    Dude, you were the one who included a self-refuting link to your claim again. Seriously, bring a better game.

    Must suck to be you, genius.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  159. cedarhill, did you not read the Comment by Kevin M — 8/23/2012 @ 10:46 am? Rasmussen has McCaskill up by 10 points. That’s a 13 point swing from their last poll, concluded on July 30th, that had Akin at +3. We KNOW how important it is to win this seat; we ALSO know that this ‘tard’s chances of doing that are heading towards slim & none territory.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  160. C’mon, Icy. It’s like the Malkin thing with EPWJ. He reads minds. Or hears voices.
    Comment by Simon Jester — 8/23/2012 @ 1:26 pm

    — He claimed that during the same interview Akin clarified his answer by encouraging women with unplanned pregnancies to look at adoption. I just want to see a transcript is all.

    Icy (9bbab7)

  161. 100. Comment by Kevin M — 8/23/2012 @ 8:17

    You all do realize that the abortion debate has been a cynical political exercise for the last 20 or so years, don’t you?

    More like 35 years, unless you think that’s only really been true since Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html

    Sammy Finkelman (2178a8)

  162. What? Do you mean I lied when I said that
    Huckabee Backs Akin?

    still sleeeeepy (b5f718)

  163. “Thank GOD that once again you have stopped by to be helpful, Dave.”

    I’m not trying to be helpful, just calling them like I see them…as per usual.

    As I see it, Todd Akin hasn’t done anything wrong, and there’s no reason whatsoever for him to step aside (unless he decides he doesn’t want to run).

    I think he’s been an excellent congressman, and I think he’ll be an excellent senator, if he wins the election, which I hope he does (though the latest polling data is none too encouraging).

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  164. Raise your hand if you care what Huckabee thinks.

    Raise your hand if you think the views of an idiot on rape and abortion are waaaaaaaaaay more important than Obama’s failed presidency, and his War on the Anerican Economy and Jobs.

    Sleeeeeeeeeeepy is the only one. And a liar.

    JD (042fda)

  165. Akin is embarrassing he needs to go away

    happyfeet (6d0bbc)

  166. Dave Surls,

    You don’t get too govern, unless you win the election.

    Akin can’t win the election.
    He’s also a terrible distraction from the economy.

    The conservative movement is bigger than just one guy’s aspirations to be a US Senator. In our Republic, we’re not electing certain people because we think they’re personally so wonderful, that they deserve our adulation.
    Rather, we elect certain people because we believe they can move the ball down the field to further our cause.

    Akin not only cannot move ball down the field, but he fumbled the ball, and doesn’t understand why everyone supporting our team is booing him, and calling for him to be removed from the game.

    Akin needs to recognize that our common cause is greater than his desire for personal glory. He suffers from too much vanity.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  167. “Akin is embarrassing he needs to go away”

    He doesn’t embarrass me at all.

    If the voters in Missouri feel that way, then they can vote for Claire McCaskill come November.

    IMO, they’ll be fools if they do, but it’s their call.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  168. Comment by Elephant Stone — 8/23/2012 @ 2:26 pm

    THIS

    aunursa (7014a8)

  169. “Akin can’t win the election.”

    Could be, but I live in the communist part of California, so backing losing candidates is par for the course for me. I’m used to it.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  170. MO could help themselves a great deal with a runoff election for the primary survivors.

    Barring other Akins rising to the top of the holding tank, we’ll still be done with Hairy running the show.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  171. 169. I’m modestly interested in Steve King’s reasons for initially supporting Akin, however, he now knows the fellow is a Tar Baby.

    Huckabee’s support simply confirms my low expectations of any upside to Mr. Akin. Religion Hustler beats Race Hustler I suppose.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  172. I’m beginning to think that Democrats would approve of post natal abortion up to 20 trimeseters.

    Just till they can be assured that the fetal matter is not stupid or retarded or conservative.

    I mean they THINK that in their heads but they’re smart enough to not voice those thoughts. Unlike certain socons lately on display.

    jcw46 (b4329c)

  173. The guy is Democrat stupid, but when he said “legitimate rape” it was obvious that he meant “true instances of rape”. I think everyone knows that, so it’s funny that the media would pretend he meant something else. They don’t fool anyone on that count, and everyone knows the news source is discredited. The point is that there is no one left to convince about things like the vile nature and liberal bias of the media. Their side likes the fact that the media and their liberal politicians lie.

    j curtis (63ca9e)

  174. Akin remains a man true to his principles, however idiotic he may be. And the Rev. Mike Huckabee has spoken (again). Huckabee now calls out folks like you for crucifying Akin. Yeah huh.
    Republicans have used the Christian Right for a long time. It is time now for the tail to wag the dog.
    Woof. Woof.
    You own him.

    Larry Reilly (890107)

  175. 178. “the Christian Right”

    How about the ‘Bible Belt Right’ or are you part of the ‘Communist, GBLT, Santerian Left’?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  176. Hee hee, larry–

    Michael Moore, Maxine Waters, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You own them.

    Woof woof

    elissa (50b427)

  177. And Bill Maher. You guys own him, too. And it isn’t pretty when he opens his mouth.

    elissa (50b427)

  178. “Akin remains a man true to his principles…”

    That’s good. I like politicians who have good principles and stick to them.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  179. “You own him.”

    That’s a concept I don’t really relate to, but then again, I’m not a member of supporter of the Slaveowner Party, unlike Larry.

    I would expect that the concept of owning other human beings is pretty much a part of the nature of Democrats and their adherents.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  180. Democrats switched from slavery by chains to slavery by law. Same difference.

    They do like to control everything those they consider the “lesser” classes do and say and think and wear and eat and hear and touch and drink and smoke (except pot. Pot’s okay) and build.

    In fact they won’t even let the hard core homeless alone.

    I gotta go build a cabin in the woods somewhere and write a manifesto.

    jcw46 (b4329c)

  181. Oops. Next thing you know the Secret service and the feds will be down here and take me off to the “Hospital” because I’m writing things that can be taken seriously instead of sarcastically.

    Oh well. See you in the Gulag!

    jcw46 (b4329c)

  182. “Michael Moore, Maxine Waters, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You own them.”

    If I was a slaveowner…I’d definitely have a better class of slaves.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  183. Who owns Joe Biden? Sleeeepy does! This is fun!

    Birdbath (716828)

  184. always remember
    lahwee akin for bacon
    it’s a m00nbat thang

    Colonel Haiku (5dd42f)

  185. While every notable pundit who lives in the real world has agreed that Akin must go, there are apparently some not fitting that description who think the GOP has turned on its own — and that if Akin loses, it’s our fault and not his (!)

    Let me help you out.

    First, Akin has an engineering degree and has been in the House since 2000, and re-elected 5 times since, quite handily I might add. Based on those factoids, I’m thinking (1) Akin might not be as schtooopid as the Dums and the lamestream media so desperately paint him out to be, and (2) I’m also thinking the voters of Missouri, particularly Republican voters, voters who know him way way way better than the rest of us keep voting for him.

    Second, these same R voters of Missouri –those who know him best– selected Akin in the primary. In democracies elections have consequences. It’s in communist evil empires, banana republics, and wherever Obama is on the ballot where the ballot is rigged to make sure challengers are finagled off the ballot so the “right” people win. And, incredibly, this is exactly what I see supposed “conservatives” and “libertarians” advocating to do. Beam me up Scottie.

    Then come the Rs. Piling on. Scared sh*tless. Being the wussie snivellers they always are. Man up! Politics ain’t beanbag.

    Akin’s candidacy needs to be rehabilitated. He needs help, not piling on from his supposed ideological allies.

    G Joubert (d1753d)

  186. Dave Surls,

    Many commenters here (including myself) live in Communist-occupied areas of California. I’m right here in the belly of the beast in LA.

    The problem with your argument is that while California is generally not a winnable state for a GOP Senate candidate, Missouri IS a winnable state for a GOP Senate candidate.

    But Akin has proven to be such a weak candidate, that he won’t even be capable of defeating possibly the weakest, most vulnerable sitting Democrat US Senator.
    There’s a reason the McCaskill campaign and its surrogates made personal contributions to Akin’s campaign for his primary fight. The reason is they perceived Akin to be the weakest GOP candidate for McCaskill to beat in the general election. See, that’s because Akin already had a history of putting his foot in his mouth.

    Akin needs to man up and see the big picture and drop out of the race. He needs to think about being a Christian, and sacrifice his personal ambitions for the greater good of a just cause.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  187. Akin is a big weirdo he’s like my uncle k except not in a special home yet

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  188. He has a decent record, all told, so why did he come up with this bogus argument with Jaco, who has a history of animosity with the Tea Party, yes he might have lost a Rove, but the bulk of the party would have held together,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  189. Could be, but I live in the communist part of California, so backing losing candidates is par for the course for me. I’m used to it.

    Part of the reason it’s the Communist part of California. Seeking winners instead of “principle” would serve the party and California better. Yes, even if they were all Arnold, it would be better.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  190. When I blasted Christine O’Donnell two years ago on some forums (not here) for being an incompetent dunce who would lose the GOP a Senate seat, I got blasted in return.

    It’s nice to see that two years later, pretty much everyone on the starboard side agrees with me — Akin Must Go. Four days ago would have been ideal. Tomorrow would still work.

    Demosthenes (03df03)

  191. @190

    “Second, these same R voters of Missouri – those who know him best – selected Akin in the primary.”

    36% of them selected him. 64% selected someone else. And make no mistake…pretty much everyone who would have voted for Todd Akin, did. Were Missouri a runoff state, the odds would be in favor of his getting smoked.

    Unfortunately, Missouri is not a runoff state. So now we’re stuck with Mr. Legitimately Raped, who was only able to manage a 1-point lead on a poll stacked 9 points in his party’s favor in the immediate aftermath of his comments. It has taken several days for Rasmussen to reveal the truth even to those who wish to be blind — Akin is losing, and that right well.

    “Man up! Politics ain’t beanbag.”

    We know, Joubert. That’s why we want Akin OUT. Politics ain’t beanbag, and a McCaskill win could allow the Democrats to (just barely) retain control of the Senate. Then we may never be able to get rid of it. And if that happens, I will blame Akin and all his supporters, including you, for the consequences. Your ideological hissy fit ain’t worth my unborn children wallowing under an even greater mountain of debt. Capisce?

    Demosthenes (03df03)

  192. @113

    “Rather see 4 years of Obama shoved into a corner by to [sic] Republican houses of Congress…”

    Says the yahoo who’s defending Akin for staying in the race. Sure seems to this poster like you want a Democratic Senate, since you’re backing the man who’s taken a near-sure takeover and turned it into as solid a Dem hold as Vermont.

    Oh, well. You can’t fool-proof fools.

    Demosthenes (03df03)

  193. You do type, well, even with those pebbles in your mouth, Demosthenes.

    But I have a tendency to distrust stridency. Please tell us the name of the replacement candidate who will beat Rosie (Claire).

    nk (875f57)

  194. “Part of the reason it’s the Communist part of California.”

    Part of the reason the Bay Area has gone Stalinist is because I vote Republican???

    Well, that’s an interesting theory, anyway.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  195. @198

    Steelman and Brunner were both up on McCaskill in the polls before the primary…and if memory serves, they were both leading her by larger margins than Akin was. Either one would be a perfectly acceptable replacement candidate. Can I say with certainty that they would win? Unfortunately, not now.

    But I do know that either would be better on the ballot than a man who just racked up a 47% Strongly Unfavorable rating in Rasmussen’s poll (63% strongly or somewhat). How many people would vote for someone they have that negative an opinion of? Assuming the sample is accurate, and Rasmussen is usually pretty good, what we’re seeing here is that roughly one in two voters has already ruled out any chance of a vote for Akin, and enough others are leaning that way to ice the win for McCaskill. That’s not what we want.

    “You do type, well, even with those pebbles in your mouth, Demosthenes.”

    Oh, I see. You think I’m aping that Demosthenes. Nope, sorry. I’m just writing essays on teh Inturnetz, biding my time until my plot for world domination ripens.

    “But I have a tendency to distrust stridency.”

    Stridency in the face of stupidity is no vice. And patience in the face of looming disaster is no virtue.

    Demosthenes (03df03)

  196. Really wish I could edit that last comment so I could change that final sentence to: “And decorum in the face of disaster is no virtue.”

    Demosthenes (03df03)

  197. And I am sorry I engaged you, creep.

    nk (875f57)

  198. There was no insult in there for you…unless, of course, you’re an Akin supporter (hard to tell, since you’ve been OT all freakin’ thread). In which case, you’re helping McCaskill retain her seat. In which case, I don’t much care whether you got your feelings hurt.

    Demosthenes (03df03)

  199. Comment by Dan Kauffman — 8/23/2012 @ 6:11 am

    As soon as the baby leaves the woman’s body if it is alive, breathing with a heartbeat, why is not setting it aside to die not

    Negligent Homicide with callous indifference and I agree

    That’s a bigger deal than a dumb gaffe about “legitimate rape.”

    The problem is, apparently, is that you first have to establish that the baby was alive, or at least that it could have lived for a non-negligible amount of time, and the people in a position to testify about this question, are the same people who would be accused of killing it!

    It’s different than a mother who abandons her baby to die, because here the expectation was (justified or not, and depending on the method of “abortion:” it might not be because maybe it could only be an induced delivery) – the expectation was that the baby wouldn’t live.

    Now maybe a prosecution could be bought but here is whee w get “prosecutorial discretion” and arguments that no case could be won – and here we have the claim, I think, that an 1975 Illinois law, actually protected doctor who performed an “abortion” that resulted in a live birth.

    And even if there were nurses who would testify a baby was born alive, the prosecutors in Illinois were not bringing such cases, maybe because of electoral considerations.

    The very fact that absolutely no “comfort care” was done, became an indication that there were no signs of life. Even if let us say a jury would ccept the nurses and technicians testimony in a swearing contest, the doctor probably would be safe as long as he could say he did not notice it, even if it was obvious that it was. It’s not like here are cameras there.

    Maybe not, but apparently nobody brought such a case.

    Sammy Finkelman (2178a8)

  200. Since the law in Illinois stayed the same, I don’t know why anybody is saying what “could” happen under the Illinois law that Barack Obama refused to vote to change.

    I don’t know what, if anything, is different now.

    Maybe they try to make sure the baby is killed in the womb.

    Or maybe I have some things wrong here, because I haven’t familiarized myself with what was really going on.

    It might not be that the proposed law would have changed things too much.

    The opponents were claiming the new law would be or could be misinterpreted to prohibit things that nobody was claiming it intended to prohibit, or that lawyers would advise caution.

    Sammy Finkelman (2178a8)

  201. What? Do you mean I lied when I said that
    Huckabee Backs Akin?
    Comment by still sleeeeepy — 8/23/2012 @ 1:56 pm

    — You lie when you say just about anything.

    Icy (3615bd)

  202. Surls:
    As I see it, Todd Akin hasn’t done anything wrong, and there’s no reason whatsoever for him to step aside (unless he decides he doesn’t want to run).
    — You WILL forgive if some of us question your perception of what is right and what is wrong.

    I think he’s been an excellent congressman, and I think he’ll be an excellent senator, if he wins the election, which I hope he does (though the latest polling data is none too encouraging).
    — Perhaps the voters do not think that what he said was all that “excellent”.

    He doesn’t embarrass me at all.
    — Well, color us all SHOCKA that the guy that labeled Zimmerman a “skinhead” doesn’t embarrass easily.

    I live in the communist part of California
    — Where is the non-Communist part? happyfeet’s house?

    Icy (3615bd)

  203. I hate communisms and we were having such a nice chat about the capitalisms and the jobs and ruinous spendings before freakshow decided to turn Team R into the procreative rape apologist party

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  204. Michael Moore, Maxine Waters, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You own them.

    Woof woof

    […]

    And Bill Maher. You guys own him, too. And it isn’t pretty when he opens his mouth.

    Not to mention the rapist who’s giving the keynote speech at your convention. You definitely own him.

    Milhouse (8acf6a)

  205. Hello my friend! I wish to say that this article is amazing, great written and include almost all vital infos. I would like to see extra posts like this .

    pregnancy information (b45a10)

  206. Part of the reason the Bay Area has gone Stalinist is because I vote Republican???

    Twenty years ago when I lived in Silicon Valley, there were Republican officeholders. Then the state party got all socially conservative and the libertarian-leaning techies all voted Dem cause they like sex.

    Nothing will help San Francisco, of course.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  207. I live in the communist part of California
    – Where is the non-Communist part? happyfeet’s house?

    That had me confused, too. Even Orange County is getting pinkish.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  208. nk #31,

    I didn’t know.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  209. i am ever-watchful against the scourge of communism did you know it’s illegal in cali to smoke in a car with a 16-year-old kid in it even if you roll all the winders down?

    that’s not just communism it’s gayer than putin smoking in a car with a 16-year-old kid in it

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  210. You moved to California, pikachu, from Texas,presumably to process TPS reports, maybe you were seeking more spendings,subliminally,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  211. nonono I was escaping the darkness – the deep gothic darkness of rural south texas

    you have no idea the horrors

    and they never

    never

    stop

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  212. I find it difficult to believe that the South Texas darkness is worse than the Southern California darkness.

    It’s just a different arrangement of darkness.

    But, I’m no judger.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  213. yes it’s a different arrangement of darkness for sure but the key thing is here in cali I’m virtually always much much more than two degrees of separation from any and all of it

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  214. rod steiger is the most ‘6 degrees of..’
    he is from everting ‘motel hell-waterfront’
    oklahoma’
    he’s sturdy!

    actr of hearing! (09ad71)

  215. tom cruise has underarm darkness

    pdbuttons (09ad71)

  216. dark delink dude..lite responce

    pdbuttons (09ad71)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1644 secs.