Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Legitimate Rape leaves Marks but Not Babies....Follow

#102 Aug 24 2012 at 2:31 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll bake you cupcakes! Well actually I'll make apple cinnamon muffins with a brown sugar topping. Is that all right?


No, thank you. I want a nice chocolate cupcake with chocolate icing that has peanut utter mixed in it. Smiley: drool



What words do the peanuts utter in order to make the cupcake so good? Are they magic words, or do they just talk dirty to you?


Smiley: lol

Typing on a phone sucks. Smiley: glare
#103 Aug 24 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
What words do the peanuts utter in order to make the cupcake so good? Are they magic words, or do they just talk dirty to you?

Muah-wha... Mwuah-muah-whah-mwuah...
Ooohh.. yes, ma'am...
Mwhuah-whah... Whah-mwuah-wah-mwuah...
Oh God, yes...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Aug 24 2012 at 8:35 PM Rating: Good
**
493 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
What words do the peanuts utter in order to make the cupcake so good? Are they magic words, or do they just talk dirty to you?

Muah-wha... Mwuah-muah-whah-mwuah...
Ooohh.. yes, ma'am...
Mwhuah-whah... Whah-mwuah-wah-mwuah...
Oh God, yes...


This made me think "dirty peanuts". So I google "dirty peanuts". It seems to be a real thing.
Still want those cupcakes?
#105 Aug 25 2012 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,052 posts
Belkira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll bake you cupcakes! Well actually I'll make apple cinnamon muffins with a brown sugar topping. Is that all right?


No, thank you. I want a nice chocolate cupcake with chocolate icing that has peanut utter mixed in it. Smiley: drool


I actually have some of those. The bad news is they won't travel well.

Would taking pictures of me eating them help?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#106 Aug 25 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll bake you cupcakes! Well actually I'll make apple cinnamon muffins with a brown sugar topping. Is that all right?


No, thank you. I want a nice chocolate cupcake with chocolate icing that has peanut utter mixed in it. Smiley: drool


I actually have some of those. The bad news is they won't travel well.

Would taking pictures of me eating them help?


Yes.

I almost bought the mix for them at the store last night, but then I decided it's better if I don't eat an entire batch of cupcakes in one sitting.
#107 Aug 26 2012 at 12:34 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,015 posts
Belkira wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll bake you cupcakes! Well actually I'll make apple cinnamon muffins with a brown sugar topping. Is that all right?


No, thank you. I want a nice chocolate cupcake with chocolate icing that has peanut utter mixed in it. Smiley: drool


I actually have some of those. The bad news is they won't travel well.

Would taking pictures of me eating them help?


Yes.

I almost bought the mix for them at the store last night, but then I decided it's better if I don't eat an entire batch of cupcakes in one sitting.

Hm...if you move this comment to the fat fucks thread I'll take that challenge.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#108 Aug 27 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
The bad news is they won't travel well.
Vacuum seal and you can send them anywhere.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#109 Aug 27 2012 at 1:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:
HARRISBURG - Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Tom Smith inadvertently waded into the war of words over rape and abortion on Monday - the very issue his party has been trying to steer clear of these days.
[...]
Smith waded into the territory when asked how he would tell a daughter or granddaughter to keep a child of rape against her will.

The Republican said: "I lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose life, and I commend her for that. ... Don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape."

Asked to describe what, in that situation, was similar to having a baby from rape, he said: "Having a baby out of wedlock."

When asked whether that was similar to rape, Smith said: " No, no, no, but well put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smiley: facepalm
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Aug 27 2012 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Republicans: Babies conceived out of wedlock aren't real babies, therefore it's not really abortion.

Keeping a baby conceived out of wedlock is just about as shameful as keeping a baby from a rapist - so pretty much if my mom and your mom and basically everyone else's mom has to carry your unwanted *** to term, with the seething hatred of Jesus boring in to her, then you can suck it up and keep your rape baby to term.
#111gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 5:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Wow, really? It's "similar" in that both are situations in which women might choose to have an abortion. Let's not forget that this is ultimately about abortion, not rape.
#112 Aug 27 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let's not forget that this is ultimately about abortion, not rape.

The two are intertwined given that rape is the most commonly given exemption when discussing abortion. The reason why being the weight of the rape experience. The GOP is trying to systematically diminish the impact of rape (not "legitimate", not "forcible", it's like a baby out of wedlock) in their quest to eliminate abortion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Aug 27 2012 at 5:43 PM Rating: Good
****
7,817 posts
Even though I am firmly opposed to abortion, I do see circumstances where it should not only be necessary, but recommended. The rape scenario is one of those circumstances.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#114 Aug 27 2012 at 5:49 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,089 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:
HARRISBURG - Republican U.S. Senate hopeful Tom Smith inadvertently waded into the war of words over rape and abortion on Monday - the very issue his party has been trying to steer clear of these days.
[...]
Smith waded into the territory when asked how he would tell a daughter or granddaughter to keep a child of rape against her will.

The Republican said: "I lived something similar to that with my own family, and she chose life, and I commend her for that. ... Don't get me wrong, it wasn't rape."

Asked to describe what, in that situation, was similar to having a baby from rape, he said: "Having a baby out of wedlock."

When asked whether that was similar to rape, Smith said: " No, no, no, but well put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean it is similar."

Smiley: facepalm


I can't help but think he is confusing "Having a baby out of wedlock" and "A woman having a baby with a man who is not her husband while married". Mainly because of that last sentence, it seems to me that the only way for it to make sense is if he is thinking that either way the father has to deal with a child that isn't his...
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#115 Aug 27 2012 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Republicans: Babies conceived out of wedlock aren't real babies, therefore it's not really abortion.

Keeping a baby conceived out of wedlock is just about as shameful as keeping a baby from a rapist - so pretty much if my mom and your mom and basically everyone else's mom has to carry your unwanted *** to term, with the seething hatred of Jesus boring in to her, then you can suck it up and keep your rape baby to term.


Wow, really? It's "similar" in that both are situations in which women might choose to have an abortion. Let's not forget that this is ultimately about abortion, not rape.


gbaji and Alma: demeaning women one moronic statement at a time.
#116 Aug 27 2012 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Republicans: Babies conceived out of wedlock aren't real babies, therefore it's not really abortion.

Keeping a baby conceived out of wedlock is just about as shameful as keeping a baby from a rapist - so pretty much if my mom and your mom and basically everyone else's mom has to carry your unwanted *** to term, with the seething hatred of Jesus boring in to her, then you can suck it up and keep your rape baby to term.


Wow, really? It's "similar" in that both are situations in which women might choose to have an abortion. Let's not forget that this is ultimately about abortion, not rape.


I apologize, gbaji, I must have misread the thread title.
#117gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a valid position to argue, but the example in this case doesn't support it at all (which was my point). The guy mentioned a situation in which a family member could have chosen to have an abortion. A situation which is vastly more commonly used to make such a decision. And he related the fact that this family member chose to have the baby. He clearly stated that it wasn't the same as a case of rape, but it was "similar". Is it really that hard to noodle out what he was talking about?
#118 Aug 27 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just seems bizarre to leap to the conclusion that conservatives therefore equate out of wedlock pregnancies with being raped.
Philadelphia Inquirer wrote:
Asked to describe what, in that situation, was similar to having a baby from rape, he (Tom Smith) said: "Having a baby out of wedlock."
Reading: It's that important.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119 Aug 27 2012 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Quote:
The guy mentioned a situation in which a family member could have chosen to have an abortion.


Sure, except that he didn't answer the question he was asked. I'm sure everyone would prefer that any given pregnant woman would be amenable to keeping the pregnancy intact and raising a child she could love and for whom she could provide. Ideally, abortion should be rare because the need for it should be rare.

The question he was asked was specifically about a pregnancy that is the result of a rape, and his response was "well, I knew a woman who was pregnant once and she kept the baby, so that's sorta the same thing, right?"
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#120 Aug 27 2012 at 7:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Even though I am firmly opposed to abortion, I do see circumstances where it should not only be necessary, but recommended. The rape scenario is one of those circumstances.


I tend to agree, but I can also respect those who see the issue differently. For someone who believes that a human fetus is a living person and should have the same rights as you or I, it's quite logical to not make the sorts of exceptions we're talking about. For that person, so accept such an exception would effectively mean that the circumstances of your conception determine whether you get certain rights in our society. We don't deny someone a single right after they are born if they happen to be the child of incest or rape, so why deny the right to life to them before being born? Again, assuming someone who believes that such a right should exist prior to birth, that is.

IMO, the problem with Akin's statement wasn't so much with the statement itself (although it was at the least horribly stated), but the fact that it's not really his position. He was trying to sidestep the issue of the exception by trying to argue that it doesn't happen very often (a dumb argument all by itself), when he should have simply stated that he doesn't believe that an unborn child's rights should be any different based on how it was conceived. It would have been the more honest answer.


Additionally, I also can see that as a counter to Joph's argument, many on the left use the rape exemption as a lever to ensure that elective abortions are kept as widely available as possible. More or less for exactly the reason that it places the anti-abortion crowd in the position of either assailing the otherwise popularly held exceptions for rape and incest *or* accepting what really is a hypocritical position. What they really want is to pass some sort of legislation (which would require a constitutional amendment given the Roe v. Wade decision) codifying a fetus' right to life. The exception cases make that more difficult, and I imagine there's lots of disagreement on how you proceed without dealing with those.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#121 Aug 27 2012 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
The two are intertwined given that rape is the most commonly given exemption when discussing abortion.
Ok. But the overwhelming number of abortions (or otherwise viable pregnancies) are performed, not because a woman was raped, but because she's unmarried and doesn't want the child. Kinda depends on how you're looking at the issue, doesn't it?

That has nothing to do with rape exemptions in abortion bans. The question came up because he was being asked about abortion exemptions. He opposed them and gave the rationale that it was similar to having a child out of wedlock. Which is an asinine comparison on multiple levels.
Quote:
That's a valid position to argue, but the example in this case doesn't support it at all (which was my point).

Using an experience where a woman had a child out of (presumably consensual) wedlock to help explain his opposition to rape exemptions doesn't support the idea that he's diminishing the impact of rape as a reason for an exemption?

I can't say I agree with you there.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 8:25pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#122gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:29 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) He's clearly speaking of the similarly in terms of how he would counsel a daughter or granddaughter who had been impregnated period. Regardless of how. Given that his position against an exception for rape and incest was not in question, it's staggering that anyone could fail to understand his meaning. To him, he would give the same advice: Have the baby. He very very clearly believes that the life of the unborn child is just as valuable either way.
#123 Aug 27 2012 at 7:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
IMO, the problem with Akin's statement wasn't so much with the statement itself (although it was at the least horribly stated), but the fact that it's not really his position.

Nonsense. He gave a multi-part answer about how a doctor told him this is true and you can totally look it up because women don't get pregnant from "legitimate" rape. You don't accidentally say that; he was trying to convince other people using this doctor as an authority that you can't become pregnant from "legitimate" rape so we don't need an abortion exemption for it.

And, as he already showed through his sponsorship of legislation, he doesn't believe that all those forms of so-called "rape" that don't leave sufficient mark actually count as rape.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:33 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) He didn't. He clearly explained that he believes in the right of a fetus to live no matter how it came to be conceived. Thus, the two situations are "similar" in that his answer and position would be the same. Does that mean he thinks that rape is no more traumatic a condition than being pregnant out of wedlock? Of course not! It's frankly an insane conclusion to leap to when a much more obvious one is sitting right in front of you.
#125 Aug 27 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
"That's similar to rape?" a reporter asked.

"No, no, no," said Smith, who was referring to a daughter's decision to have a child outside marriage. Then he added, "But, well, put yourself in a father's position. Yes, I mean, it is similar."
gbaji wrote:
it's staggering that anyone could fail to understand his meaning.

Indeed. Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 8:36pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#126gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's a matter of semantics. You know my position on this as well. Regardless of label, I think there's a huge difference between forcible rape, non-forcible date rape, and statutory rape and that it does the entire issue a disservice to pretend they are all identical. Has nothing to do with the abortion issue, but despite his poor choice of words (and silly intent to argue that because something may or may not happen very often, we can ignore it legally), his broader position on the issue of different types of rape needing to be treated differently, as well as the trend by some to intentionally work to avoid doing so, is perfectly valid.
#127 Aug 27 2012 at 7:44 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
It's "Remarks not intended to be factual" all over again.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#128gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 7:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Similar in one context, and not similar in another. You're working really hard to avoid the parts I've already explained several times. To him, they are both similar in that he believes the child has a right to live. Obviously, they are not similar in terms of traumatic effect on the woman. Let's stop playing word games, ok?
#129 Aug 27 2012 at 7:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yup. And that's not really his position, is it?

I would guess that it is, given that he gave a lengthy answer defending it. The fact that he's since backpedaled in a desperate attempt to save his campaign doesn't impress me much. Maybe it impresses you more.
Quote:
Quote:
And, as he already showed through his sponsorship of legislation, he doesn't believe that all those forms of so-called "rape" that don't leave sufficient mark actually count as rape.
That's a matter of semantics.

Not in the least.
Quote:
You know my position on this as well.

Yes. Helps explain why you're single.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 8:47pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Aug 27 2012 at 7:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, they are not similar in terms of traumatic effect on the woman. Let's stop playing word games, ok?

There's no word games. He said he'd use the wedlock example to convince someone else to bear a child conceived from rape. If he didn't think the two were analogous, he wouldn't use one to defend the other; he could just say "the child has a right to live" without bringing up his aunt Martha who slept around or whatever compelling story he has to share.
Quote:
You're working really hard to avoid the parts I've already explained several times

You're working really hard to avoid admitting uncomfortable truths about your political party and its core beliefs.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#131gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 8:00 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm sorry? You lost me when you attempted to argue that attempting to make distinctions between several different things that all carry the same broad label is somehow not about semantics.
#132 Aug 27 2012 at 8:02 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
So you're arguing that forcible rape, non-forcible date rape, and statutory rape are all exactly identical?
So you're arguing that one of them should be exempt from abortions?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#133 Aug 27 2012 at 8:07 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Which is pretty normal when a politician says something stupid. I mean, it's not like he went on and on about the definition and use of the word "is" or anything.

Wow, I hope that wasn't really your defense or attempt to convince anyone that he wasn't speaking his true thoughts.
Quote:
It's not about what impresses me or not. Strange that you think this is important.

I don't. I'm a little curious and amused that you'd try to bend this so much to defend the guy but it's ultimately not really important. He said what he believed and now he's trying to salvage his campaign from the fallout.
Quote:
I'm sorry? You lost me...

Given previous threads on the topic, I'm not surprised in the least. This is one of those arenas where we just have vastly different values and I don't see you ever understanding mine given the cost.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#134 Aug 27 2012 at 8:12 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,817 posts
gbaji wrote:
I tend to agree, but I can also respect those who see the issue differently. For someone who believes that a human fetus is a living person and should have the same rights as you or I, it's quite logical to not make the sorts of exceptions we're talking about. For that person, so accept such an exception would effectively mean that the circumstances of your conception determine whether you get certain rights in our society. We don't deny someone a single right after they are born if they happen to be the child of incest or rape, so why deny the right to life to them before being born? Again, assuming someone who believes that such a right should exist prior to birth, that is.

We make exceptions for convicted felons on death row every day, not that I disagree with the death penalty. If life is so sacrosanct as your statement appears to make it, then we shouldn't kill them either.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#135gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 8:13 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Where? That some in my party hold the position on abortion I mentioned earlier? Where the **** have I ever denied that? I'm not the one uncomfortable about this Joph. Kinda seems more like you are. You're the one who seems to have a need to twist people's words around in order to make someone's position about something different than it is. It's funny because in both cases, you have a Republican who believes in the right to life of a fetus. Yet, instead of addressing that position, both are attacked for things unrelated to that position. For one, it's what constitutes "legitimate rape", and for the other it's whether he believes that rape is similar to being pregnant out of wedlock.
#137 Aug 27 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I'm not the one uncomfortable about this Joph. Kinda seems more like you are

I'll fully agree with you that the GOP positions on rape and abortion make me uncomfortable.

Re-reading Smith's comments, I have to agree that he did not state that he would use the example of his relative to counsel someone as it first appeared to me. He did strike a comparison between the two which was incredibly tone deaf which he first tried to defend ("but… put yourself in a father’s situation, yes. It is similar") and then backpedaled from when he realized how much he had just fucked up. His best defense then was saying he didn't condone rape as though that was ever the question. Most disturbing was his lack of interest in the state of the rape victim, shown by his rather blase comparison to counseling a woman who became pregnant from a consensual relationship.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 9:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#138gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 8:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Different issue, but the argument is that the right to life can be lost based on actions the individual takes. Just as other rights can. The unborn child, whether the product of rape/incest or not, did not do anything to deserve having its right to life taken from it. The criminal presumably did. Now we can absolutely disagree as to what constitutes sufficient legal process to take that right to life away from someone, but we should be able to agree that such a right should only be taken away as a consequence of that person's own actions. At the very least, we should be able to agree that these really are significantly different cases.
#139 Aug 27 2012 at 8:36 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yup. And that's not really his position, is it?

I would guess that it is, given that he gave a lengthy answer defending it.


Which is pretty normal when a politician says something stupid.


Smiley: laugh

I'll remember that next time you phrase your retort in the form of a dissertation.

...which is, you know, pretty much always.


Christ gbaji, you make it too easy.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#140gbaji, Posted: Aug 27 2012 at 8:38 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) /shrug
#141 Aug 27 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
I just don't see anything wrong with what he said,
Shocker.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#142 Aug 27 2012 at 8:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yup. And that's not really his position, is it?

I would guess that it is, given that he gave a lengthy answer defending it.


Which is pretty normal when a politician says something stupid.


Smiley: laugh

I'll remember that next time you phrase your retort in the form of a dissertation.

...which is, you know, pretty much always.


I started out saying that what he said was stupid. I just happen to think it was stupid for slightly different reasons than most people.


Again: To me the dumb part is that he was attempting to argue that we shouldn't deal with a case in our law because it doesn't happen very often. That's like saying that we don't need to make murdering one armed basketball players illegal, because it's rare. It doesn't matter if he's absolutely correct and if we choose to look only at forcible rape, and the statistics for pregnancy from forcible rape are really really low, it's still a stupid argument. Even if it only happens once, we need to address the issue. It's doubly dumb in his case because his position is in opposition to an exception in the first place. So why the **** is he bothering with the odds of pregnancy from rape at all? His position on this issue doesn't change regardless of those odds, right?


That's why he was stupid to say that. It's not really about his distinction over "legitimate rape, or what the actual stats for pregnancy arising from rape are. It's about him arguing something that has absolutely no relevance to the position he holds on the issue itself.

Edited, Aug 27th 2012 7:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#143 Aug 27 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I just don't see anything wrong with what he said,
Shocker.


Yup. Shocker. Got anything else to contribute?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#144 Aug 27 2012 at 8:50 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I just don't see anything wrong with what he said,
Shocker.
Yup. Shocker. Got anything else to contribute?
Nothing you can offer a counter point to.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#145 Aug 27 2012 at 8:55 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I just don't see anything wrong with what he said,
Shocker.
Yup. Shocker. Got anything else to contribute?
Nothing you can offer a counter point to.


You must be new here. Smiley: lol
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#146 Aug 27 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I just don't see anything wrong with what he said,
Shocker.
Yup. Shocker. Got anything else to contribute?
Nothing you can offer a counter point to.
You must be new here. Smiley: lol
Long enough to notice you haven't. Smiley: smile
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#147 Aug 27 2012 at 9:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I just don't see anything wrong with what he said,
Shocker.

Likewise. Part of the reason I'm not a Republican, I guess.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Aug 27 2012 at 9:26 PM Rating: Excellent
http://www.theonion.com/articles/pregnant-woman-relieved-to-learn-her-rape-was-ille,29258/
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#149 Aug 27 2012 at 9:42 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,350 posts


The link in the article you posted is funny.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/republicans-condemn-akins-comments-as-blemish-on-p,29259/
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#150 Aug 28 2012 at 7:40 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
We should ban life jackets and other flotation devices. They only encourage risky behavior. The only 100% effective way to prevent drowning is total abstinence from going in the water.

And if you do, by chance, find yourself struggling with drowning, then no life-saving or otherwise procedure or act should be allowed to be administered. You got yourself into this mess, you have to live with the consequences.

You should see drowning as a gift.

You, there with the sunglasses! You're just asking for it.

Also, if you were forcibly pushed into the water, don't worry. If it was legitimate pushing, your body will find a way to shut out all the water and survive the drowning.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Aug 28 2012 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,241 posts
lolgaxe wrote:


Also, if you were forcibly pushed into the water, don't worry. If it was legitimate pushing, your body will find a way to shut out all the water and survive the drowning.

Virgins float. duh
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CST
Bijou, Jophiel, Kavekkk, Omegavegeta, Anonymous Guests (48)