Democrats & Liberals Archives

As the Old Saying goes...

Lie down with dogs…

Get up with fleas.

Sometimes a gaffe is defined as a candidate accidentally saying what they really believe. We can imagine a magic fairy land where evil witch's spells (was that Christine O'Donnell I saw running by?) are the relief-inducing explanation for such words, but I'm of the opinion that the likeliest explanation is the simplest one.

The Republican party is learning once again what the cost of their desperate reliance on political zealots.

We need leaders who know they belong in the twenty-first century, not ones that assume that everything in America went downhill from the 1930's

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at August 19, 2012 11:48 PM
Comments
Comment #351137

I’m reminded here of Allen’s macaca moment. That doomed him back then because it was already a national atmosphere that favored Democrats. Statements like this should derail Akin’s campaign but it may not. This Tea Party Caucus sure is filled with some intellectual heavyweights. Gosh.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 20, 2012 9:41 AM
Comment #351138

Maybe the Democrat who edited the video forgot to edit out the part where the candidate said “What he understands from doctors.” Maybe he needs to go and find more Doctors to better clarify that statement.
Adam, as far as intellectual heavyweights go, don’t you think you need to include those of your party which include the Vice President Biden, Pelosi, and Wasserman schultz, and even the President when he goes off his teleprompter.
By the way don’t get me wrong in the case of rape Abortion should be legal.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 10:15 AM
Comment #351140

KAP-
And maybe it’s his own damn fault he said what he did. Too many Republican and Conservatives leader blame the media for essentially passing on what they really said.

The notion that a woman’s body somehow rejects sperm from rapists, if the woman genuinely doesn’t want the intercourse is a common refrain among those looking to rationalize doing away with rape and incest exceptions.

This isn’t simply some off the cuff response. He is relating something here he really believes. This is too sophisticated of a statement to be a simple brain-fart.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2012 10:51 AM
Comment #351142

KAP,

Literally thousands of quotes taken out of context by FOX, and now you bitch?

Really, it’s not as if adding the “What he understands from doctors” makes the quote less grievous.

Akin is a chowder-head amongst people who’s narrow view of reality is scary at the least.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2012 10:55 AM
Comment #351143

The spokewoman for the Romney campaign, Andrea Saul, says the “Romney/Ryan administration would not oppose abortion in instances of rape.”

This contradicts the previous positions of both Romney and Ryan. Romney has said he would sign a constitutional admendment defining life as beginning at conception. Ryan is a co-sponsor of a personhood bill in the House.

Does anyone know what Romney or Ryan actually believe? What is their stand?

Maybe the spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, is wrong. She’s the one conservatives denounced just recently. They even demanded her resignation because she suggested a man’s wife who died of cancer due to lack of medical coverage (caused by being laid off by Bain) would have been all right if she had lived in MA and been covered by Romneycare. Conservatives didn’t like this because that woman, by extension, might have lived if she were covered by Obamacare.

So may Andrea Saul is wrong, and Romney and Ryan still support personhood for fertilized eggs, and a constitutional amendment that human life begins at conception.

Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2012 11:18 AM
Comment #351144

Stephen, Is that something like the liberal media saying what liberal politicians really mean? Rocky, literally thousands of quotes taken out of context by MSNBC, CNN, Huffpost, Daily Kos, TPM, Time, Washington Post, N.Y.Times. I agree it’s his own Damn fault for not researching the problem, and no Rocky he was a dumb s—t for answering the way he did.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 11:53 AM
Comment #351145

I’m more pro-choice than the most progressive out there, but I don’t see a contradiction between identifying that life begins at conception (anyone with any science background can agree to that IMO) and still being pro-choice. Just because we accept that abortion is killing a living thing doesn’t mean that we are for outlawing all abortions, does it?

Granted, it may make some pro-choice (only for abortions) people in the progressive movement ‘squeamish’ but that doesn’t change facts.

Posted by: rhinehold at August 20, 2012 11:59 AM
Comment #351147

Here is an interresting article on the subject pandys.org/articles/rapeandpregnancy.html/

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 12:06 PM
Comment #351150

phx8, so you don’t think that life begins at conception, when does it begin? First brain activity? 2 weeks before birth? 3 months after birth?

What magic time does ‘life’ begin if not at conception and why?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 20, 2012 12:13 PM
Comment #351152

KAP-
Though I’m glad you consider what he said stupid, I wish, for the love of what’s good, that you would not be so quick to buy it when some conservative says “I was taken out of context.” Half the time, folks who say that are just as guilty as Akin is, they’re just not man or woman enough to own up to how outside the pale their views actually are.

Rhinehold-
When folks say “life begins at conception,” They’re not saying “biological life” begins at conception, a concept even the most ardent support of abortion would be hard pressed to deny, they’re saying that purposefully aborting that zygote, at that point in time, is the murder of a human being, no different than if they had taken the child out of the mother’s womb when born, and smashed its head in on the nearest counter. It’s disingenuous to believe that they’re really making a distinction between identifying abortion as the killing of a life, and the need to outlaw abortion.

It’s a basic supportintg argument.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2012 12:21 PM
Comment #351153

KAP,

Perhaps this is your link?

http://www.pandorasproject.org/articles/rapeandpregnancy.html

If it is, do you agree with gist of the article?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2012 12:36 PM
Comment #351154

Hopefully, the voters of my state will understand this election is much more important than a differing belief on abortion.

Thanks Akin, you just gave liberals, the masters of fear mongering, ammo they did not deserve. Lies and rhetoric about killing spouses and ending Medicare and SS will now be accompanied by BS about abortion.

From an objective point of view though, Claire “Obama’s lap-dog” McCaskill had already lost the election and Akin has now given her a second chance. The pro-abortion crowd will hammer this non-stop in hopes people will forget about everything else.

Living in Missouri, more Claire is just as bad as more Obama.
Blah!

Posted by: kctim at August 20, 2012 1:01 PM
Comment #351155

Stephen I was refering to what Rocky said about FOX, and the rest of the MSM taking quotes and editing them to show things that aren’t exactly what actually was quoted. As far as Akin, He was just plain stupid. But I was surprised that someone didn’t edit out the Doctor thing but still he was an idiot.
Rocky, Yes I agree with the gist of the article.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 1:19 PM
Comment #351156

KAP: “Adam, as far as intellectual heavyweights go, don’t you think you need to include those of your party which include the Vice President Biden, Pelosi, and Wasserman schultz, and even the President when he goes off his teleprompter.”

When any one of those people says something as moronic and cold as Akin did then we can talk comparisons.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 20, 2012 1:31 PM
Comment #351157

Adam, Biden last gaff was moronic in the sence it could be taken as a RACIST statement and Republicans can be just as guilty by their shackel statements. So lets put the BULLS—TING aside and say both sides are guilty of MORONIC statements.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 1:48 PM
Comment #351158

KAP:

We don’t have to have a “both sides” debate anyway. I’m not even blaming Republicans for this so much as I’m blaming specifically the morons like Bachmann and now apparently Akin, in the Tea Party Caucus.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 20, 2012 2:26 PM
Comment #351159

Rhinehold,
Since you ask… IMO, life begins at birth. A human being becomes a human being at birth.

Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2012 2:43 PM
Comment #351160

phx8, interesting… so the moment before the baby exits the womb, it isn’t a living human being, but the moment after it is?

Don’t you find that kind of … ‘arbitrary’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 20, 2012 2:47 PM
Comment #351162

KAP-
When I hear you say “he was quoted out of context,” my first response is to say “what context?”

Which is to say: give me the quotes, and how you think it modifies the apparently stupid, racist, sexist, radical, etc. opinion the original quote seems to offer to something more innocuous and/or sensible. Don’t just throw me a standard line of spin, and play the victim. I want our audience here to have some notion of what everybody’s mistake was.

I’m sick of everything being about your side pushing around everybody that disagrees with it. I want proof that your charges are true, not just you offering the assumption to be taken at face value.

KAP-
The main difference is that Democrats aren’t typically rewarded for saying stupid things, and when folks talk about context to make the comment defensible, they can provide actually context which changes things. Say like the rest of that one speech in the “You didn’t build that” controversy making it clear that the subject was infrastructure, along with the point he summed up with.

So, when I say “he was taken out of context, the context changes things” (the implicit claim, of course), I can turn around and hand you it.

The Republicans, on the other hand, often use that statement basically to pretend that what they said wasn’t inexcusable, and that it’s the media’s fault it looks so bad.

What do you think the eventual effect of Republicans getting used to being able to shoot of their mouths like this, the insular inside appreciation and the lack of real questioning of the appropriateness of the sentiments, much less their expression?

You’re looking at it.

As beliefs diverge, as the desire to conform opinions to the mainstream goes down, as radical political defiance becomes a cultural quality of the party, and as some become more confident that their point of view is taking over anyways, this kind of rocket-lauched foot in the mouth becomes more and more likely. The very thing Republicans want more out of their party members, especially in the Tea Party, are the very things that will make this more likely.

kctim-
Your basic problem is that much of this stuff is true. Romney’s corporate vulturism did ruin many lives. Ryan’s medicare plan does constitute a radical fiscal agenda that comes at great expense to Medicare, and the kinds of radically anti-abortion and anti-feminist sentiments that people like Akin say, though not necessarily representative of the party faithful out in the world, does represent what many of the top Republicans and conservative pundits think.

There’s just so much folks like you depend on being left unsaid in order to make conservatism palatable, and for the most part, Republicans would just say these things, rather than try and make them policy. Unfortunately, with the Tea Party in ascendance, these policies are foregrounded all at once, making it more difficult to keep the party sympathetic.

It’s like one Democrat said when people told him to give his opponents hell. He replied “I’ll give the truth, and they’ll think it’s hell!”

Unfortunately, the truth is hell for conservatives these days. That’s why they’re running a pathological liar for president.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2012 3:11 PM
Comment #351163

Adam, They call themselves Republicans, that would be like saying Biden, Wasserman Schultz, are part of the Liberal/Progressive caucus. As I said lets Quit with the BULLS—TING, both sides have their MORONS. I blame each individual for their statements no matter what party they claim to be in. Akin R. was an IDIOT as well as Biden D. was an IDIOT for his statements and GAFFS.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 3:12 PM
Comment #351164

Stephen, Republicans are NOT MY PEOPLE, Akin is not being rewarded by his party, far from it if you are keeping up with the Gaff. Where did I say he was quoted out of context? You want quotes such as Biden’s “They’ll put you back in chains.” RACIST remark to a predominitly Black audience or Romney’s “unshakle Wall Street.” Bulls—t Stephen, YOUR PEOPLE always defend THEIR PEOPLE when they make IDIOTIC statements including the MSM. Never have I heard from Media such as MSNBC, CNN, or the like denounce anything Democrats say that is MORONIC in fact they defend the remarks. But “O” let a Republican do the same and people like Schultz, Maddow, Sharpton, Daughtery, Ducker, Adrienne, and Jane Doe will jump on it.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 3:31 PM
Comment #351165

Since you ask… IMO, life begins at birth. A human being becomes a human being at birth.
Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2012

Using your definition phx, preventing a live birth denies the fetus being considered a human being. Becoming a human being then, is reduced to a human decision. If a human decides to allow nature to take its course the result is a human being. If not, the result is merely dead tissue.

The dead tissue could be referred to as an attempted human being.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2012 4:05 PM
Comment #351166

We define rape as non-consensual sex. phx defines a human being as the results of a consensual birth.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2012 4:12 PM
Comment #351167

phx foolishly wrote: “life begins at birth.”

The medical definition of life is:

a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body

b : a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2012 4:28 PM
Comment #351169

Royal Flush,
There is no single given definition of ‘life.’ There are different definitions for different fields: medical, biological, and more.

The only workable definition when considering human beings is birth, the time when a fetus becomes physically separate from the mother.

Most cultures and most religions work upon that definition, and always have. A few use different criteria; for example, some cultures do not consider a child to be a human being with a soul until days or even up to three years after birth.

Looks like Akin and Ryan co-sponsored bills on “forcible rape” as opposed to “rape,” in order top deny some raped women the choice of an abortion.

Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2012 4:44 PM
Comment #351170

phx8 gives us his “workable definition” of life while I provided the “medical definition. No doubt “workable” translates to opinion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 20, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment #351171
The only workable definition when considering human beings is birth, the time when a fetus becomes physically separate from the mother.

No, that is the only workable definition that you politically can take. I dare you to ask 100 women if the baby they have inside of them at 8 months is a ‘living human being’ or not.

Most cultures and most religions work upon that definition, and always have.

Most cultures used to believe we revolved around the sun, most religions believe in an invisible ‘all being’ watching our every move like a perverted Santa Clause.

When science changes, our ‘society’ must learn to change with it. A ‘plant’ is alive, because it is growing cells. A fish is alive because it is growing cells. A human being is alive when it is growing cells. Inside the womb it has no ability to make life decisions for itself and until birth the mother is the only one who can make decisions for that child. However, that doesn’t make it a living human being. Nor does pretending it isn’t absolve our conscience of what decision is being made.

Stephen, as you can see, you are quite apart from most progressives on the theory of when life begins. I think your assumption was way off.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 20, 2012 5:26 PM
Comment #351174

Jeez!
I just love it when MEN try to talk about abortion, when life begins, and rape. It is so apparent that none of you truly understand any of the topics you are ‘discussing’. Not surprising since you are not the ones affected by any of the above. Except, yes, I believe men can be raped as well a women, but it is a rarity. Frankly, I don’t know where you guys get off having an opinion at all based on your own lack of knowledge concerning the entire topic!
However, since you decided to add your two cents, here’s what your don’t know.

Royal Flush is correct about rape: Rape is non-consensual sex. Men or women, IMO.

However being raped does not increase or decrease the odds of pregnancy. Not my opinion, but medical science as well. There is no way to predict when the egg will be ready to be fertilized based on when a rape occurred. That is decided by the individual cycle of the individual woman! DUH!

As for when does life begin - well guys, I knew my children were ALIVE when they kicked me, from the inside of ME at approximately 4 1/2 months. Something unfortunately that men have no idea what it feels is like. However, life is not viable until 7 mos. Something my daughter found out the hard way. She lost a child born at 6 1/2 mos.

Therefore, biologically speaking, in IMO, unborn babies are not considered human until 7 mos. when they might be able to sustain their lives.

However, as the older members of this site may remember, I advocate abortion until 3 months. Just like most people. I do not advocate any abortion, for any reason after 3 months.

I do not believe abortion should be used as birth control, and any woman who has more than 2 abortions should have a tubal ligation. Period. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. And yes I am willing to pay for it - because it is cheaper than paying for the life of a child, who would most likely be unwanted.

And, believe me, I KNOW what it is like to be raised by parents who didn’t want to have children. It isn’t pleasant. Frankly, I would have rather been aborted than grow up the way I did. An opinion I haven’t changed in almost 60 years.

phx8:
Good question! Does anyone know what Romney or Ryan actually believe? What is their stand?

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at August 20, 2012 5:42 PM
Comment #351175

KAP: “Adam, They call themselves Republicans, that would be like saying Biden, Wasserman Schultz, are part of the Liberal/Progressive caucus.”

Except that I’m specifically talking about the Congressional group that Bachmann and Akin belong to. It’s a good grouping of subpar intelligence.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 20, 2012 5:55 PM
Comment #351176

Highlandangel1: “However being raped does not increase or decrease the odds of pregnancy.”

Typically it’s hard to get pregnant without intercourse so I’m going to call you on the idea that being raped does not increase the odds of pregnancy.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 20, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #351187

“Life is not viable until 7 mos.” because your daughter lost her baby at 6 and a half mos.? What the hell does that prove?

Posted by: BZA at August 20, 2012 7:01 PM
Comment #351188

Stupid comment. Not related to Romney or Ryan.

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2012 7:16 PM
Comment #351189

C&J,

“Not related to Romney or Ryan.”

Maybe this is a different Ryan?

From Stephen’s second link, second paragraph;

“Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term “forcible rape.”

And the speed of light isn’t faster than Romney and Ryan distancing themselves from this guy.

Amusing

Adam,

Perhaps you’re merely dealing with the semantics, I hope.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at August 20, 2012 7:31 PM
Comment #351190

Adam, They are still Republicans, are those Democrats who are in the Black caucus any different then other Democrats or Blue Dog Democrats different, NOT.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 8:00 PM
Comment #351191

C&J-
I think you’ll find, if you research enough, that in recent times Romney has lent his support to bills that are incredibly restrictive of reproductive rights. As it is, you have a direct association through Ryan to several bills meant to restrict abortions and abortion funding.

But your bigger problem is this: by indulging the far right in your party, indulging the zealots, you’ve more or less condemned yourself to go through this crap on a regular basis.

Nobody can tell these people to shut up without risking the shaky coalition, or being run over by the Tea Partiers. At the same time, those Tea Partiers, when they increase their numbers, only add more mouths waiting for the sweet taste of toejam.

Your party IS going to alienate people until it moderates itself. You will have to take flack for people holding retrograde views, for looking out of touch, etc, until you decide that your party and movement are better off without these people. One way or another, Republicans were going to pay for the last decade. The Tea Party, I’ve always felt, was kind of like debt financing on getting back power quickly. Unfortunately, the price of the loan of power they’ve given you will be paid back with interest by the Tea Party’s skill at alienating voters. And the worst part is, your folks are going to insist on running these kinds of folks until it becomes so bloody obvious that they’re more likely to lose, that they quit doing that.

It’s going to be a painful decade for the GOP.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 20, 2012 8:08 PM
Comment #351194

The issue is simple: is abortion permissible if a woman has been raped? Is it an acceptable exception to the general rule promoted by the pro-life side? Not a difficult question to answer.

Posted by: Rich at August 20, 2012 9:12 PM
Comment #351195

KAP: “Adam, They are still Republicans, are those Democrats who are in the Black caucus any different then other Democrats or Blue Dog Democrats different, NOT.”

I’m honestly not sure what you’re arguing. I was always referring specifically just to the Tea Party Caucus when I spoke sarcastically of intellectual heavyweights. This is a group of a couple dozen conservatives in Congress that every time I read their statements or see their opinions I just shake my head. Akin’s just another example. But apparently you think I can’t list people I think are stupid conservatives without in turn listing all the people you think are stupid liberals. But of course Akin’s statements were actually offensive. Biden’s for example were offensive only to those conservatives who were looking for excuses to get offended.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at August 20, 2012 9:34 PM
Comment #351196

highlandangel,
I understand what you are saying when you feel a baby kicking at 7mos and feel it is alive. I’m the father of two children. I’ve felt the baby kicking. The point is, if the baby was born at that point, by whatever means, it would then be separate from the mother, and hopefully viable.

As for outlawing abortion after three months… I’d just point out that sometimes things go very very wrong with the pregnancy after that point. No one wants that, but still, it happens. If something goes very wrong, especially in a case where it threatens the health of the mother, then it needs to be the decision of the mother and the doctor.

Not Royal Flush.

I’m not insensitive to the point of view of Royal Flush and others. They are welcome to put their own beliefs into practice. When it comes to controversial issues, abortion, and defining the nature of life, and the nature of what is means to be human, well, that pretty well defines controversial. Reasonable people will disagree. And in cases like that, it has to be left to each person to make that decision according to their own lights.

The problem surrounding this issue is when people decide they are entitled to make decisions for others. It has to be left to each mother & doctor.

Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2012 9:35 PM
Comment #351198

This post is just another, in a long list of lame attempts to change the subject from Obama’s failed presidency to some stupid comment that don’t mean shit.

Why are you conservatives wasting your time even discussing this topic, which was destined to end up talking about abortion and when life begins? The left loves to kill babies; it doesn’t matter if it’s in the 1st trimester or the 3rd, the end goal is the right to terminate the life of a human being.

They kill babies, they want to kill babies, they want everyone else to kill babies; they are not going to change, so talking to them is a waste of time. The way I figure it, every time an abortion takes place, it’s another potential liberal being killed. It takes a real idiot to destroy their own kind. But I will say this; God will not be mocked concerning the aborting of babies. A price will be required, so just keep killing babies. I wonder when God believes the life of a human begins?

This post is a waste; next week the left will have moved on to some other crisis.

Posted by: Frank at August 20, 2012 9:47 PM
Comment #351199

I beg to differ with you, Adam about Biden’s Moronic gaff. It did offend more than just conservatives. It did offend Black religious groups and the former First Black Govenor of Va. who happens to be a Democrat. Maybe not people like you who think liberal democrats are above reproach and can do no evil so even though I think Bachmann is an airhead and Akin a total Idiot for what he said, Ill put your comnments in that same catagory. I don’t care about caucus’. I look at the name and see a letter after it usually a R or D and in some cases an I and it just so happens that the 2 I’s in the Senate CAUCUS with democrats. So you can keep up with the semantics but to me it just shows liberal/progressive Democrats can be airheads and idiots to.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 9:57 PM
Comment #351200

Old sayings always tell the truth,,I think that there are so many hardships o bear once a person is born. something that you cannot accept, but you have to do well.

Posted by: Richeal at August 20, 2012 9:59 PM
Comment #351202

Stephen & Rocky

Ryan may be in favor of rules that restrict abortion or birth control. If you want, you can attack him on that. But he didn’t make the statement we find offensive, nor did he encourage it to be said. Guilt by association is not something we really should take seriously.

If we are to accept guilt by association, Obama needs to explain again his long-time associations with known felons (Rezko), terrorists (Ayers) and racists (Wright).

Posted by: C&J at August 20, 2012 10:01 PM
Comment #351204

Frank, IMO this post goes to show how far the liberal left goes in finding fault with conservatives even though they make no effort to correct the moronic statements some on their side make. Even though Akin’s statement was Moronic call went out for him to drop his run for the Senate, unlike Biden who was just sent to his room for punishment.

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 10:15 PM
Comment #351205

KAP, I have been checking the conservative news sites and all of them are calling for Akin to drop out. Drudge has a link saying he may drop out tomorrow. When was the last time a liberal called for a lefty democrat to drop out of a race because of an ignorant statement? Never, in fact, they justify the comments of the left and protect them.

This campaign is the nastiest in history and will only get worse. Obama is losing ground because of the nastiness and it is expected, the American people aren’t stupid.

Posted by: Frank at August 20, 2012 10:54 PM
Comment #351209

Frank, I agree!!!

Posted by: KAP at August 20, 2012 11:47 PM
Comment #351210

Frank-
So, let me get this straight: you get to call us baby killers, but if we say anything perjorative about your policies, it’s away to the fainting couch?

Be my guest, keep on showing people this side of yourself. I’m sure people will appreciate the basic fact that you can dish this kind of foul overwrought rhetoric, but the minute Democrats stop being milquetoasty, and hit back, they’re just such awful people!

I think any abortion is a sad affair, and as a matter of fact, I’d just as soon they not occur. But I am not a woman, and am not about to tell women what to do with their bodies and their wombs.

The problem for people like Todd Akin, is that the truth wasn’t convenient enough for the sake of the argument he wanted to make, so folks cooked up this scientifically ridiculous idea. Too bad your radical anti-abortion rhetoric is offensive to people outside the group, but hey, what do you expect when you start parsing what is truly rape, in a way that characterizes any woman who gets pregnant from a rape as a slut who was asking for it in their secret hearts of hearts.

You can dish it, but apparently you can’t take it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 12:10 AM
Comment #351215

Stephen

Nobody is supporting Akin. He said a stupid thing. But he doesn’t speak for others any more than Obama embraced the racism of Wright, the terrorism of Ayers or the criminal behavior of Tony Rezko.

We are not dishing it out. You just are trying to make something where it doesn’t exist.

If you talk to people who support Akin, you can tell them that they are wrong. As it is now, you are essentially the strongest supporter Akin has on this site, since you want to keep him current.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2012 6:30 AM
Comment #351216

C&J-
The polling shows barely much change on the part of Republicans, so he must get the sense that he can weather this. The big time Republican names, both for strategic and admittedly personal reasons, have jumped on Akin.

Your comparison is disjointed. We’re not talking about one man, especially one who is associated by insinuation alone with the conduct of the three you mention. I’ll get back to that later, and the contradiction it represents.

This is a party that I don’t think you’ve really paid close attention to in some time. You’ve been so glad of the Tea Party’s help, that you’ve avoided facing the fact that much of the tea party’s ideology is rather extreme, even by your standards.

Let me put this bluntly: Akin’s problem is not so much that he believed what he did, but that he said it out loud. Go and look at the Sandra Fluke episode, and the misogyny present there, as Republicans came to the defense of Rush Limbaugh. You think the same people who would defend calling women who take birth control sluts would disagree with a position that says if women really doesn’t want it, she won’t get pregnant? Do you think the same ignorance that had Rush Limbaugh acting like women took the pills before having sex, rather than on a monthly cycle, would preclude a similar such bit of pseudoscience?

The basic problem is, folks like you in the Republican leadership have allowed folks like Akin to run and shape the agenda, or at least not discouraged them from taking these extreme views, and as time has gone on, the GOP’s developed a festering tumor of this kind of extremism.

And now, with the rise of the Tea party, folks have just thrown off the restraints they kept in order to maintain their former majority, and now, having won, they’ve got even less willingness to stay silent.

And the truth is, these folks’ politics is as alien to many folks like you, as it is to me, but they now control the agenda of your party.

Back to the other topic: I look at your three examples, and I can’t help but recall that your side mercilessly attacked Obama with those three associations. You couldn’t have picked three worse examples. You don’t associate them, right? But how about many of your fellow Republicans? How many of them believe the unproven connections? How many of them have more or less been scared senseless by the conservative media?

I have watched this president be absolutely savaged by the GOP and its media arms, and such arguments have been a centerpiece. As with virtually every attack, the idea has been to deny Obama a strength. So, you have that group trying to Swiftboat him right now, to cancel out killing Bin Laden, among his other foreign policy successes. You had folks pushing that Government Motors line, even as Obama’s intervention saved the domestic auto industry. You have Obama’s successful reversal of the trend in the economy after 2008, which gets met with claims that the stimulus didn’t work.

And you have a ****load of obstruction, to make sure his achievements were kept to a minimum.

This doesn’t sound like a candidate to me that’s sinking under his own weight, this sounds to me like a policymaker who the other side is trying to, having to, hold back.

Long story short, not only has your side been dishing it out, but dishing it out has become your primary mode of winning elections. It’s all about opposing the liberals, opposing Democrats at all costs.

The trouble is, that oppositional sensibility has resulted in a situation where the GOP’s portion of the electorate has become more concentrated in its radicalism, and where it’s become more difficult for other people to find common ground with the radicals in the party. So, you have one of two options: let the party slide into a vocal minority, or try and spread that radicalism.

That is what Akin has been caught gracelessly trying to do. You have to face the fact that his position is not an extraordinary one within your party, just one that doesn’t tend to get discussed with outsiders.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 8:16 AM
Comment #351219

“Frank-
So, let me get this straight: you get to call us baby killers, but if we say anything perjorative about your policies, it’s away to the fainting couch?”

Stephen, use spell check, I think you mean pejorative. You can say you’re not “baby killers”, but that would be false. For all your rhetoric about “rights”, it all boils down to your support of destroying a human life.

“Be my guest, keep on showing people this side of yourself. I’m sure people will appreciate the basic fact that you can dish this kind of foul overwrought rhetoric, but the minute Democrats stop being milquetoasty, and hit back, they’re just such awful people!”

There are a majority of Americans who are pro-life; so I am good company when I show this side of myself.

“I think any abortion is a sad affair, and as a matter of fact, I’d just as soon they not occur. But I am not a woman, and am not about to tell women what to do with their bodies and their wombs.”

No you don’t, because you and your leftist friends relish the idea that a woman’s “rights” trumps the life of a baby. I don’t care what you believe Stephen; I will answer for myself and you for yourself. But I do know when I stand before the Lord, I won’t be standing there with the blood of innocent children on my hands, but you will.

“The problem for people like Todd Akin, is that the truth wasn’t convenient enough for the sake of the argument he wanted to make, so folks cooked up this scientifically ridiculous idea. Too bad your radical anti-abortion rhetoric is offensive to people outside the group, but hey, what do you expect when you start parsing what is truly rape, in a way that characterizes any woman who gets pregnant from a rape as a slut who was asking for it in their secret hearts of hearts.”

As I said Stephen, conservative groups are calling for his dropping out of the race. Other than that, it’s just the latest outrageous talking point of the left, for the purpose of changing the subject or taking the attention off Obama’s failed presidency. You Stephen, have never been outraged enough about a leftist politician to call for his stepping down, so don’t act so self righteous. If you have, please give us a name of the politician and your exact quote, asking him/her to resign.

You comment to C&J:

“The trouble is, that oppositional sensibility has resulted in a situation where the GOP’s portion of the electorate has become more concentrated in its radicalism, and where it’s become more difficult for other people to find common ground with the radicals in the party. So, you have one of two options: let the party slide into a vocal minority, or try and spread that radicalism.”

Stephen, you have two problems; the 1st is your claim that the GOP has a more concentrated radicalism and the 2nd is we represent a minority. Your wrong on both counts. Let’s look at 2 polls, 3 years apart, and conducted by the same company:

In the past 17 years, there has been a 16 point drop in pro-choice supporters; and a 17 point uptick in pro-life supporters. So it is your side and your beliefs concerning abortion that is in the minority.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/pro-choice-americans-record-low.aspx


From your link Stephen:

“Tampa, Florida (CNN) - The Republican Party is once again set to enshrine into its official platform support for “a human life amendment” to the Constitution that would outlaw abortion without making explicit exemptions for rape or incest, according to draft language of the platform obtained exclusively by CNN late Monday.

“Faithful to the ‘self-evident’ truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed,” the draft platform declares. “We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”


I see nothing different in these comments than what conservatives have always stood in support of; do you? Are you trying to tell us of some new revelation of what conservatives believe?

Stephen, when standing before God on the Day of Judgment, I would rather say I was for protecting the life of the unborn child, than the Democrat Platform of protecting the rights queers to live a life of abomination before God. Stephen, you will always be on the wrong side of every issue. You condemn me for my views, fine…you are also condemning God for his views and good luck with that condemnation.

Posted by: Frank at August 21, 2012 9:21 AM
Comment #351220

Stephen

My “basic problem” is none of it is true but your people lie to the people to convince them all of it is fact. Pitiful and pathetic.
ALL lay-offs can ruin lives and it doesn’t matter if a Republican or liberal does it, as you dishonestly want people to believe.
Obama’s health care plan “constitutes a radical fiscal agenda that comes at great expense to our nation.
This election isn’t about a different opinion on abortion and anybody voting based on it is an idiot.

It’s funny though, no matter if it’s a liberal or a Republican saying something stupid, your people are always the first ones out there trying to convince people what was “really” meant by the statement. I guess thats what happens when you can’t run on the issues and instead have to run on lies and personal attacks.

Posted by: kctim at August 21, 2012 9:38 AM
Comment #351224

The problem surrounding this issue is when people decide they are entitled to make decisions for others. It has to be left to each mother & doctor.
Posted by: phx8 at August 20, 2012

I agree, even though I personally oppose abortion except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. The fact is, most abortions are performed for convenience reasons. I won’t both to post links as they are readily available.

If one believes that the decision to abort should belong exclusively to the mother and doctor, how then does one rationalize others being force to pay for that individual decision?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012 12:07 PM
Comment #351226
you are also condemning God for his views and good luck with that condemnation.

I don’t think luck is needed. It’s pretty easy to condemn god for his views, if there is a god (which there isn’t).

BTW, so much for ‘judge not lest ye be judged’, apparently Frank feels no problem ignoring the part of god’s laws that he disagrees with…

Frank, do you eat fruit? Are you sure the fruit trees are ‘holy’? In the same book of the bible that has been mis-quoted to say that homosexuality is an ‘abomination’, it also states:

Lev 19:23 When you enter the land and plant any kind of fruit tree, regard its fruit as forbidden. For three years you are to consider it forbidden; it must not be eaten

Do you eat red meat that isn’t Well Done?

Lev 19:26 Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it

Do you want to treat illegal aliens differently than natural-born americans?

Lev 19:33 When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt.

Have you cursed your mother or father?

Lev 20:9 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head.

Ever have sex with a woman on her period?

Lev 20:18 If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.

Do you keep Kosher?

You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground—those that I have set apart as unclean for you.

Read a horoscope?

A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads

I could go on… But the question is, do you treat all of these offenses as ‘god’ has dictated? Or, do you pick and choose as it affects you and then apply your prejudices harshly onto others?

Posted by: rhinehold at August 21, 2012 1:11 PM
Comment #351227

I am not responding for Frank, rhinehold, but you should know that the verses you quote from the Old Testament applied only to the Israelis of that day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012 1:23 PM
Comment #351228

Royal,

Or any Jewish people that live today.

But my point is that if you are going to use a verse in the Old Testament to ‘condemn’ people who commit homosexual acts, you need to be following those same rules in that same book. If you are going to throw out the Old Testament’s rules you don’t like, which modern Christianity does, you need to throw them ALL out.

Or do you get to ‘pick and choose’?

You can’t have it both ways.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 21, 2012 2:08 PM
Comment #351229

BTW, I find it sad that so many people who want to put their religious laws into societal laws are the same people who are upset that Muslims may want the same thing.

Muslims law forced onto nonbelievers = bad, Christian law forced onto nonbelievers = good. Nevermind that they came from the same original theology…

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 21, 2012 2:11 PM
Comment #351230

While I appreciate rhinehold’s conservative or libertarian political views, I agree with Royal Flush, that he has no idea what he is talking about when giving his opinion on the Bible. First of all, rhinehold is atheistic and doesn’t believe the Bible. Secondly, the verses rhinehold quotes from the Old Testament are related to the Law of Moses and the nation of Israel. The law was not given to the Gentiles.

Rom 2:14 “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:”

There is much that can be said about this verse, but the point made is the Law was not given to the Gentiles.

Gal 3:13 “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:”

Secondly, whether Jew or Gentile, Christ redeemed us from the effects of the Law of Moses. So clothing, food, or any other rules of the Law of Moses do not pertain to us now. We are to live by faith.

Concerning homosexuality, I hesitate to provide verses because rhinehold does not believe them, even though he tries to prove a point by quoting them, but the Bible is very plain about God’s view of homosexuality, and I will use the New Testament to provide the verses:

Rom 1:24 “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:”

Rom 1:25 “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

Rom 1:26 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:”

Rom 1:27 “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Rom 1:28 “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

Rom 1:29 “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,”

Rom 1:30 “Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,”

Rom 1:31 “Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:”

Rom 1:32 “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

For those who believe in God and the Word of God bothers you, take it up with God.

For those of you who deny the existence of God, it wouldn’t matter what I quote.

Posted by: Frank at August 21, 2012 2:26 PM
Comment #351231

Frank-
Okay, pejorative. Can we agree I meant you use loaded words all the time?

You say, “You can say you’re not “baby killers”, but that would be false.”, but you’re running into a problem here.

Most abortions that take place, take place within the first trimester- 88%. Most Abortions take place even earlier, 61% taking place in the first 9 weeks. The fetus is the size of a grape, and would definitely die if born at that point if born.

An induced abortion is nothing to take lightly. But your comparison is like telling somebody breaking an egg that they’re a chicken killer. To the point of view of many getting the operation done, they aren’t killing a child, they’re terminating the process that creates one, and most of the time, they terminate the pregnancy long before anything close to that bouncing bundle of joy you want to exploit with your rhetoric is anywhere close to actually existing.

Allowing abortions is not equivalent to requiring them. Those who have a religious or spiritual objection to abortion, myself included, are permitted the freedom to object to it, to counsel against it, even to consider it a mortal sin if they like.

But women should have the freedom to decide that for themselves, up to the point of viability, and their doctors should have the ability to call for that abortion if its necessary to save the life of the mother.

As for where the majorities lie?
I think you should reconsider your claim.

Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation Poll. July 25-Aug. 5, 2012: Respondents replied by 19 percent that abortion should be always legal, by 36 percent that it should be legal in most cases. 55%, all in all, saying it should be mostly legal or more.

Gallup Poll. May 3-6, 2012. 52 percent, sometimes legal, 25 percent always legal. 50% claim the label of pro-life, but a significant percentage of them would have to also be willing to allow abortion in some circumstances.

It boils down to something, if you’re trying to be purist and calling anybody who supports any kind of abortion “baby killers”: most people do not take your harsh position, and are in fact “baby killers” by your definition.

This is the problem with starting from the pejorative. You leave yourself nowhere to go, to meet people in the middle.

As for conservative groups calling for Akin to pull out? Well, he’s said now that he’s not going to, that he’s going to remain in this race. This creates some interesting dilemmas. First, many organizations dropped their support of him, called on him to exit. What now? Do they drop the race, or do they return to attempt to help this radioactive fellow get elected over Claire McCaskill, who most certainly will make political hay over the fact.

And if they do elect this dumbass, they’ve now embraced somebody like that, the person they supposedly rejected. What then about your claims that the Republican Party has nothing to do with him?

As for where I am on Judgment day? You know only God know that. Just consider, though, one very important fact: he will not look at what you were able to convince others of, he will look at your heart. Is yours a heart that forgives, that loves? I have no qualms about where I am on the issue. I believe it is a private matter between God, the Woman, and her doctor, and that she should do what she thinks best. YOU should not be anywhere in that office. Nor should you be in the bedroom of any pair of consenting adults who want to join together in a faithful relationship.

Royal Flush-
Convenience? From my source above:

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]

In other words, not simply women who partied too hard, and don’t want to live with the consequences.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 2:31 PM
Comment #351234

Rhinehold…I wrote this in response to phx8.

“I agree, even though I personally oppose abortion except in cases where the mother’s life is in danger. The fact is, most abortions are performed for convenience reasons. I won’t bother to post links as they are readily available.

If one believes that the decision to abort should belong exclusively to the mother and doctor, how then does one rationalize others being force to pay for that individual decision?
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012”

Regardless of ones belief regarding legal abortion, I would ask why any taxpayer money should be used. If a woman is pregnant, it would be a stretch to believe that I, or millions of other taxpayers, were involved in that happening.

We don’t pay for the bad decisions or accidents that happen to others as a rule. A person who fails to employ simple and inexpensive brushing and flossing of the teeth can expect dental problems. Should taxpayers foot the bill for those poor decisions?

If a person is very obese due to simple overeating, should taxpayers foot the bill for the weight loss program?

I use tobacco and recognize the risks. I pay taxes on the tobacco I use which government claims is used to offset the greater health care risk I present to government. At least I pay taxes on my folly. Why should others escape paying for lax behavior or their folly? Women who become pregnant by consensual sex have no reason to expect taxpayer money to remedy the result of their behavior.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012 2:43 PM
Comment #351235

FRank-
In light of the rise of the Obama Administration, what are your thoughts on Romans 13: 1-7?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 2:43 PM
Comment #351236

rhinehold, I have not seen any Christians forcing or even demanding anyone follow Biblical teachings, whether Old or New Testament. I personally do not care if people poke each other in the butt, it’s their business. But it is considered an abomination before God; neither your words nor the words of any other defender of homosexuality will change that. While it is true that homosexuality is an abomination before God under the Old Testament Law, it is also considered to be part of a reprobate mind in the New Testament, as I quoted in the previous comment. Adultery is a sin under the Law, and was also considered to be a sin in the New Testament by Christ Himself. You are mistaking the rules that the Jews were to live by under the Law with what is considered sin. While God created desire and pleasure to be connected with procreation, the overriding purpose of sex is to procreate; homosexuality is the uncontrolled desire and pleasure without the possibility of procreation. I realize this will create a plethora of ignorant comments about sex, but I am merely giving a Biblical interpretation.

Posted by: Frank at August 21, 2012 2:44 PM
Comment #351238

Sd and others, I will have to answer any questions that arise later. I have a golf game to play.

Posted by: Frank at August 21, 2012 2:48 PM
Comment #351239

Frank-
Let me be blunt: when I was making the decision whether or not to be a Christian, the intolerance and hateful language of people like you was major factor weighing against my decision to do so. Only when I found in the bible a much more humane and forgiving God, and a Christ who preached that forgiveness, could I justify becoming a Christian.

Your brand of political Christianity, Christianity used to elevate Republicans above Democrats, Conservatives over liberals is a stumbling block to people, a demonstration of your own intolerance rather than of God’s love and peace. You are not good at turning people’s hearts towards the grace that God has put inside them.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 3:00 PM
Comment #351240

Royal Flush-
Convenience? From my source above:

The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[7]

In other words, not simply women who partied too hard, and don’t want to live with the consequences.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 2:

YES, convenience…read your own list. You are confusing convenience with comfort and desire.

As a Christian are you prepared to defend any of those reasons for abortion before your God?

1. Sorry God, I had to care for someone else

2. Sorry God, I am poor

3. Sorry God, work or school comes first

4. Sorry God, I am not married

5. Sorry God, my husband and I don’t get along well

6. Sorry God, (fill in the blank _______)

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012 3:00 PM
Comment #351241

Royal Flush-
You go on feeling righteous about yourself, if that’s what floats your boat. You treat the moral decision as one-dimensional. It’s not.

God’s watching, and he’s not looking to see who will most zealously enforce his laws, he’s looking to see who will most effectively show folks his love.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 4:30 PM
Comment #351244

Frank,

Yes, I am now an atheist. I was also a preacher and studied the bible pretty extensively for over a decade. I understand the bible pretty well, in fact it was studying the bible (and it’s hatred and inconsistencies) that led me to realize it was a book, written by men, as a way to control other men’s actions.

But that is also besides the point. Your suggestion that I cannot ‘understand’ the bible because I don’t believe it to be the word of god is a fallacy. Best to drop it and actually debate the facts.

First, the Romans quote you provided was Paul giving his opinion to the people of Rome. They were not the words of God, as Leviticus was. But you are going to recognize that ‘because it is in the bible’ it is the ‘holy word of god’, but while that is your belief, you are asking others who do not believe in you to make a law that follows that guideline. Even if we find it hateful, reprehensible and evil.

Second, no where does it say you should put guns to people’s heads and make them not do what they choose to do, only that god will judge them.

Third, this is not the same as calling it an ‘abomination’, which was a mis-translated usage of the Hebrew in the first place.

Fourth, I can argue quite effectively, if I choose, that this is not a violation of the word of god at all, and is countered with other verses in the bible as well, which is what makes the bible so much fun, since it contradicts itself all of the time (and in doing so disproves its divinity, imo). But I’m sure you don’t want to have that conversation with a ‘non-believer’ because your heart is closed (much against god’s wishes).

Finally, as Jesus taught, it is not *OUR* place (or because you are a believer, *YOUR* place) to judge whether someone is following the word of god or not, that is HIS, and only his, right and power to do so. And as we also know, even the most vile homosexual, according to you, can repent right up to his last breath and be forgiven. If god chooses to punish them, that is his call, NOT YOURS.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 21, 2012 5:12 PM
Comment #351246

After brave, brave Sir Romney finally got the guts to explicitly call on Akin to get out of the race, This was Akin’s Response

“Don’t you think Romney made a bigger deal of this than he needed to?” Akin asked Sean Hannity on his radio show. “Why couldn’t he run his race, and I’ll run mine?”

Please pass the popcorn. X-D

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 5:45 PM
Comment #351247

Stephen wrote; “Royal Flush-
You go on feeling righteous about yourself, if that’s what floats your boat. You treat the moral decision as one-dimensional. It’s not

My post was not about righteousness. I used the excuses you posted as reasons women give for abortion. I say they are for convenience and you say what…?

Who provides the “moral decision” for choosing abortion because of work, school, or all the other reasons you listed? The moral decision involved is arrived at by weighing the “burden” of having a child with other self interests. I will continue to believe that abortion for convenience displeases God.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012 6:10 PM
Comment #351248

Royal Flush-
Kids are not cheap to raise in America these days. It’s more than a question of convenience, it’s a question of giving the proper amount of care to the children you already have.

You believe what you want to, but don’t be making out like you can make that decision for somebody else.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 6:24 PM
Comment #351249

On a less serious note, it turns out Mitt Romney got and boasted about an endorsement in 2007 from a Pro-life activist, a Dr.John Willke, who pushes the “legitimate rape” theory.

While it’s likely that kind of backwards thought might not have been in Romney’s mind at that point, The Republicans approved a platform position with no exception for rape victims in their abortion position.

Republicans don’t seem to be going out of their way to shed that image of believing in the magic ladyparts theory.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 6:29 PM
Comment #351250

So now it’s an economic issue, Stephen, maybe you and Akin have something in common.

Posted by: KAP at August 21, 2012 6:33 PM
Comment #351251

Re Abortion - those that have them are probably doing us all a favor from the Darwinian perspective.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2012 6:36 PM
Comment #351253

You believe what you want to, but don’t be making out like you can make that decision for somebody else.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012

Putting words in my mouth Stephen? Expressing my opinion is not making decisions for others. That children represent an expense is true, and reflects the desire of money over the child. It’s called…”convenience”. Now, you are merely attempting to change the topic…guess that makes your position indefensible. Most women obtain an abortion for the sake of their convenience.

No one has yet made a case for government to pay for abortion for convenience which I oppose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012 6:38 PM
Comment #351254

Royal Flush-
You are supporting a policy that would do it, the distinction is not all that useful. It’s in your party’s platform, and the House Majority whose election you cheered, and likely voted for passed many bills that would do the job.

Quit pretending you’re not trying to force your decisions on these women, you’re trying to make them law.

Also, if you don’t have enough money, you might not have enough to feed and clothe the children. A large segment of the population that gets these abortions are at or near th poverty line. It’s not merely inconvenience, it’s a matter of avoiding the neglect of the children who are living and breathing for those women.

As for the government paying for abortions, the use of federal funds for that purpose has long been outlawed by the Hyde Amendment.

C&J-
From a Darwinian perspective? Concentration of resources on a few children might not be a bad idea. Nor waiting to have them until circumstances are better. It’s not just about having many offspring, it’s about having offspring who survive.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 6:55 PM
Comment #351255

Stephen you being more silly than usual in your comments. I have no problem with abortion if the life of the mother is in danger. I am undecided about abortion in the case of rape. I am opposed to abortion for convenience.

Perhaps you subscribe to anything and everything your party says and does. I don’t feel that way about the Republican Party.

Stephen, are you suggesting that poor people who do not abort their children are neglecting their children? Aren’t you the arrogant one? Do we not have a myriad of government programs designed to aid these families?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012 7:12 PM
Comment #351256

As I said Stephen, now you say abortion is an economical issue. Some months back you were argueing free birth control for the poor, which they already have. So now it’s better to kill the unborn for economic reasons. What’s next Stephen. You do have something in common with Akin.

Posted by: KAP at August 21, 2012 7:13 PM
Comment #351257

I would like a show of hands on this.

If you come from a large family with many children and lived as poor folks do you wish you would have been aborted?

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 21, 2012 7:28 PM
Comment #351260

Stephen

I would rather hope those who favor abortion as a simple solution would produce no children at all. But fewer of their genes in the future population might be a good thing no matter.

Of course, you recall that Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, took this idea to an extreme. She wanted to limit birth of poor, blacks and immigrants, whom she called “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.”

She was actually kind of in line with your thoughts when she said, “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Progressive thought is wonderful, isn’t it?

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2012 7:46 PM
Comment #351261

Royal Flush-
I apologize for insulting your delicate sensibilities. Too many people look at natural selection as merely being a numbers game. In truth, there are species that have lots and lots and lots of children.

And ours is not one of them. We tend to have one at a time, and raised like our ancestors the hunter-gatherers did, pretty far apart. You see Bushmen in the Kalahari, and because they breastfeed a certain way, don’t have children but once every five or six years. Yet they continue over time. Why? Because investment in parenting works, creates well-adjusted children who learn more skills, and are stable enough emotionally to raise good families of their own. There’s a psychological and social element to natural selection in our species. You can’t just spam the world with children and expect your genetic line to win.

Which is not to say that I recommend abortion as a eugenic measure. I don’t believe we are wise or far-sighted enough to breed to a pedigree the way folks do with dogs or cats, cows or chickens. The best traits and combinations of traits for survival aren’t necessarily obvious to the mind of man.

As a matter of fact, my personal preference is for those women to either practice contraception or abstinence. Employing those means in order to do family planning is far preferable in my view. But I don’t feel qualified as a man to tell a woman whether or not she should carry a child to term, if she believes it won’t be good for anybody involved.

Put another way, I believe in a woman’s right to choose, her freedom to determine her reproductive destiny.

What Margaret Sanger may have said in some other time is irrelevant. My view is that in this modern age, families should have the option to be prepared for when their children arrive. If they want to do things the natural way, that’s their option, with all the consequences that come. If they want to plan things out, by various means, so be it.

I’m going to let them decide. You? C&J? The policies of the GOP will not let them decide. It will force the decision on them.

Oh, by the way, I wanted to get this out: It turns out the research behind that cockamamie theory came out of Nazi Death Camps.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 9:27 PM
Comment #351265

Stephen

I think the decision should be with the woman involved from the legal point of view. That does not mean it is the moral thing and we all have the right and even the duty to voice an opinion. We probably agree.

I also point out, however, that women who want to have abortions probably would be bad mothers anyway and so I am glad that they have removed their genes and their malevolent influence on the future. Perhaps I am even more liberal than you are on this issue.


As a side issue, I think it is ironic that people who favor abortion are often anti-hunting.

Posted by: C&J at August 21, 2012 9:53 PM
Comment #351269

C&J-
Natural Selection isn’t about you yourself having more kids, it’s about your kids having the chance to grow into adults who can raise good offspring themselves. If you have limited resources, contraception and family planning might play well into ensuring that the family you do raise has a better chance. Survival of the fittest doesn’t mean the finest pedigree, the greatest aggressiveness, or whatever. It means making good use of what you got, not overtaxing what you depend upon to survive.

Social Darwinism is based on the moronic assumption that rich people are necessarily the cream of the crop. Well, if their pursuit of success, or their idleness in the other direction leads them and their children to be maladjusted, it could very easily spell the doom of their line, as it did for so many folks of supposedly high breeding. Just look at Victoria’s family tree, and the hemophilia, or the rather self-entertwined family tree of the Ptolemies and the Pharaohs, which number among the many explanations why Tutankhamun died young.

The idea that the rich are the genetic high ground, and that the poor represent the genetically poor is just a load of hogwash. This notion of “high breeding” is just another excuse that some people, who were likely just a few generations removed from living in the same mud huts everybody else did, invented to justify their power, their specialness, their nobility. It’s BS.

I bring up the hypotheticals of how having fewer children could mean greater genetic legacy to make a point here: we got big brains, all of us, for a reason. It’s our natural advantage as humans. That, more than anything else, has allowed mankind to survive. What it also means, though, is that success is not largely a phenotypical affair. Sure, it helps to have certain talents and everything, but you should ignore that the special brains that come with such talents can sometimes be problematic to maintain in genetic space; if a rich nerd doesn’t reproduce, the evolutionary advantage isn’t that good.

As is typical for many in the GOP, you miss the value of the legacy beyond the current day’s competition.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 11:13 PM
Comment #351278

“Frank-
Let me be blunt: when I was making the decision whether or not to be a Christian, the intolerance and hateful language of people like you was major factor weighing against my decision to do so. Only when I found in the bible a much more humane and forgiving God, and a Christ who preached that forgiveness, could I justify becoming a Christian.

Your brand of political Christianity, Christianity used to elevate Republicans above Democrats, Conservatives over liberals is a stumbling block to people, a demonstration of your own intolerance rather than of God’s love and peace. You are not good at turning people’s hearts towards the grace that God has put inside them.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 21, 2012 3:00 PM

A tick question, huh? Stephen, so now we are to base our Christian beliefs on “by your leave Stephen Daugherty”; we are to base our beliefs on your interpretation of what a Christian should be. I have read your comments in the past and I know for a fact that you do not even believe the Bible; so how can you make the statement “I found in the bible a much more humane and forgiving God”?

Tell me Stephen, rhinehold refers to the Old Testament “blood for blood” or “an eye for an eye” and you refer to the New Testament love and peace”; which of you are correct. Are you saying you’re correct and rhinehold is a liar?

Let me go one further Stephen; you say you are a Christian, a Catholic, yet according to the teachings and Biblical interpretations of Evangelical Christians, you are not a Christian. Who is the liar, you or Evangelicals?

Stephen, I have read many of your posts; and believe me, Christianity has no part of your lies, misrepresentations, your own hateful speech toward anyone who does not hold the same political view as you.

You defend the right of Muslims to have their own beliefs, and yet when the Koran says they have the right to kill infidels, I have never seen you condemn their beliefs as being evil.

What we have in your comments is a continuation of Obama’s war on religion, simply because it does not meet your interpretation of the Bible, even though you don’t believe the Bible.

Stephen, you are the very one who loves to quote the Bible concerning “judgment” and yet your comment to me is judgmental on your part. It’s a case of leftist false outrage, isn’t it Stephen?

“Your suggestion that I cannot ‘understand’ the bible because I don’t believe it to be the word of god is a fallacy. Best to drop it and actually debate the facts.” Rhinehold

I never said you do not understand the Bible, because you don’t believe it and I did not suggest it either. If that is how you took my comments, I am sorry, I simply said you misinterpreted it based on you unbelief. The Bible was written by the leadership of the Holy Spirit and is understood by the aid of the Holy Spirit:

“1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
1Co 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.”

“First, the Romans quote you provided was Paul giving his opinion to the people of Rome. They were not the words of God, as Leviticus was. But you are going to recognize that ‘because it is in the bible’ it is the ‘holy word of god’, but while that is your belief, you are asking others who do not believe in you to make a law that follows that guideline. Even if we find it hateful, reprehensible and evil.”

You are correct that Paul was writing to the Church at Rome; but the book of Romans is simply one of many Epistles written to individuals and churches, but combined to make up the books of the New Testament. If you back up a few verses prior to the verses I quoted, you will find Paul says:

“Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”

So Paul was referring to mankind from the beginning of creation, when explaing this to the church at Rome; how man had created and worshipped false gods and concluding with the dishonoring of themselves through homosexual acts. Paul does not say this is his words, he simply declares it. When Paul wrote his own opinion in his Epistles, he claimed it to be his opinion and since ”all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God” then we must conclude it means all Scripture.


“Second, no where does it say you should put guns to people’s heads and make them not do what they choose to do, only that god will judge them.”

I’m not sure of your meaning of this statement; I never said anything about guns. If you are referring to my beliefs; I simple say, as I have before, people have the right to believe whatever they want. I force my beliefs on no one.

“Third, this is not the same as calling it an ‘abomination’, which was a mis-translated usage of the Hebrew in the first place.”

“Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

“tô‛êbah tô‛êbah
to-ay-baw’, to-ay-baw’
Feminine active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally), that is, (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol: - abominable (custom, thing), abomination.”

Strong’s Concordance

Whether Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek; why would God change His definition of what “men lying with men” or “women lying with women” means? It was called and abomination in the Old Testament and it is still an abomination in the New. One would have to stretch the meaning of the Scriptures pretty far to come up with any other meaning of the word.

“Fourth, I can argue quite effectively, if I choose, that this is not a violation of the word of god at all, and is countered with other verses in the bible as well, which is what makes the bible so much fun, since it contradicts itself all of the time (and in doing so disproves its divinity, imo). But I’m sure you don’t want to have that conversation with a ‘non-believer’ because your heart is closed (much against god’s wishes).”

Some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind have tried to prove the Bible contradicts itself and have failed. But I am sure you are smarter than these. Even Satan said, “Yea, hath God said?”

“Finally, as Jesus taught, it is not *OUR* place (or because you are a believer, *YOUR* place) to judge whether someone is following the word of god or not, that is HIS, and only his, right and power to do so. And as we also know, even the most vile homosexual, according to you, can repent right up to his last breath and be forgiven. If god chooses to punish them, that is his call, NOT YOURS.”
Posted by: Rhinehold at August 21, 2012 5:12 PM

Rhinehold, you completely misunderstand me; I force my beliefs on no person. In fact, I don’t care what other people believe. You are an atheist, and I say, you have the right to believe whatever you want. I do not care what the homosexual believes, as I said, they can poke each other in the butt all they want. I only have to answer for myself and not others. But that being said, if we go back to my comment on Stephen’s original comment, there will be a day of reckoning. Man will answer to God for his sin, and neither belief nor unbelief will change that.

Posted by: Frank at August 22, 2012 9:37 AM
Comment #351291
I’m not sure of your meaning of this statement; I never said anything about guns. If you are referring to my beliefs; I simple say, as I have before, people have the right to believe whatever they want. I force my beliefs on no one.

So, you are NOT against laws legalizing homosexual marriage then? You don’t think that abortion should be illegal? I just want to make sure we are clear on that…

“Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

I thought the old testament wasn’t ‘in effect’ anymore? But let’s look a little closer…

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%e2%80%9cabomination%e2%80%9d/

Yet a close reading of the term toevah suggests an entirely different meaning: something permitted to one group, and forbidden to another. Though there is (probably) no etymological relationship, toevah means taboo.

The term toevah (and its plural, toevot) occurs 103 times in the Hebrew Bible, and almost always has the connotation of a non-Israelite cultic practice. In the Torah, the primary toevah is avodah zara, foreign forms of worship, and most other toevot flow from it. The Israelites are instructed not to commit toevah because other nations do so. Deuteronomy 18:9-12 makes this quite clear:

When you come into the land that YHVH your God gives you, do not learn to do the toevot of those nations. Do not find among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire; or a magician; or a fortune teller, charmer, or witch… because all who do these things are toevah to YHVH and because of these toevot YHVH your God is driving them out before you.

It really does take a greater understanding that we are working on imperfect translations from an old document based on words and meaning that have changed over time. For example, the Hebrew word for virgin at the time of the writing of the bible was ‘an unmarried woman’, not necessarily one that had never had sex. But because we are using a translation that is imperfect, this misunderstanding has persisted…

Some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind have tried to prove the Bible contradicts itself and have failed. But I am sure you are smarter than these.

Failed? I don’t think so. We don’t have to look farther than the first book of the bible to see two different creation stories. The contradictions do not end there…

But as we know, faith requires a suspension of critical thought. Therefore, using facts and logic to counter ‘faith’ is going to be a challenge, it’s like bashing your head against a wall hoping to dislodge the bricks, a closed hard mind is simply unwilling to move.

You can see part of the rationalizing in your own words when you try to prove something about the bible by using the bible itself as that proof. Critical thought and logic would cringe at trying to do something like that, but because you have suspended the normal rational thinking for your faith, you see no issue with doing that at all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at August 22, 2012 11:24 AM
Comment #351293

“I’m not sure of your meaning of this statement; I never said anything about guns. If you are referring to my beliefs; I simple say, as I have before, people have the right to believe whatever they want. I force my beliefs on no one.”

So, you are NOT against laws legalizing homosexual marriage then? You don’t think that abortion should be illegal? I just want to make sure we are clear on that…”

I still fail to see where guns pertain to anything I said. Re/laws legalizing homosexual marriage; I don’t know, do we have a law legalizing it? Re/abortion; it is the law of the land, it doesn’t matter what I think.

Rhinehold, you sound a lot like Stephen; “I thought the old testament wasn’t ‘in effect’ anymore? But let’s look a little closer…”

Did I say it wasn’t in effect anymore, or did I say the Law of Moses pertained to the Jews and not Gentiles and that we were not under the Law. Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying I said something I didn’t say. Is it so important to have a ‘Gotcha” moment that you are willing to twist my words around?

Re/the definition of the word “abomination” in the Old Testament”; I gave you the definition according to Strong’s Concordance, not the King James word, but the Hebrew word; and you give me the definition according to a left wing, pro-gay, anti-Christian essay, written by someone with a agenda.

Rhinehold, you need to publish a book about the faults and contradictions of the Bible; I’m sure it would be a great success. The problem we have here is I believe the Bible and am a practicing Christian; you on the other hand, are a disenfranchised Christian who for some reason has a vendetta against Christianity, God, and His Word. I guess we will have to leave it at that.

Posted by: Frank at August 22, 2012 1:48 PM
Comment #351295

Frank-
The bible is like a somewhat translucent cloth through which the sun shines. What we read is translated, a compilation of multiple books, inextricably bound to the cultures of the people who authored the books. Within some books, you can find places where it’s believed folks inserted new endings (Job and The Gospel of Mark). You can find contradictions (Seven day earth creation, vs in the day God created the earth), and so much more.

If you insist on everything being literally true, you have to go through all kinds of logical and interpretational gymnastics in order to square things. I don’t have to square things, because I’m less interested in the bible as being 100% reliable, with not a falsehood or a mistake in its page, and more interested in its underlying spirit.

Do I believe that all the stories happened the way it says they did? No. Do I believe that the stories have meaning that provides useful guidance for my life, and that tells me important things about God and Christ? Yes.

Have I accepted Christ as my savior? Yes.

Have I read the bible? Yes. My choice of the verse in Romans wasn’t accidental. I didn’t have to look up anything but the verse number.

As for what the Old Testament and New Testament say, there is no contradiction between Rhinehold’s citing of the talonic law, and mine of Christ’s Gospel of mercy and forgiveness. Plus, if Rhinehold truly believes what he’s saying, even if it’s false, he’s only mistaken, not a liar. Not everybody who says something untrue is lying.

I don’t assume that the bible is lies because some things in it might not have happened. Why should I have assumed that Rhinehold was lying if he was wrong, but thought he was speaking truth?

As for Evangelicals, you are mistaken on an important issue: not every evangelical church is a proponent of fundamentalist theory, of literal interpretation of the bible. Our readers should know that Baylor University, at least as of my residence there, had long been separated from the Southern Baptist Convention because it kept a contextualist interpretation of the bible. So, are you basically saying that the people who run the oldest Baptist University in the state of Texas are not Christians?

Hell, as a Catholic, I’m not obligated to a literal interpretation either, so are no Catholics Christians either?

For the reader’s information, Evangelical means Baptist, Methodist, or any other denomination, typically mainline protestant that emphasizes missionary work as part of its framework. Many are literalist, but not all, or even necessarily most.

Christ shall judge who the real Christians are. I could try myself, but I don’t think he’d look too kindly on that. I’d just warn you, that as much of a buzz you might get from putting me in my place, it won’t change his mind if you’re wrong.

As for the leadership of the Holy Spirit? Just look throughout the old Testament, and Peter, Paul, and the other disciples. They were lead by the holy spirit, from Adam to Paul, and with the sole exception of Jesus, all had their bad moments. Moses didn’t get into the promise land, because even with God guiding him, he still let his temper get the best of him.

No man is perfect, save one. I can live with that. I can live with the bible not being this pristine, perfect version of God’s word, because I know God’s spirit, and the conscience he whispers into will help me in spite of it.

I think you honestly consider yourself a Christian, and honestly believe you’re fighting the good fight. However, I’ve failed to get much of any respect out of you, even though Christ tells us to love our enemies. You confuse a self-righteous fight with those who disagree with you, with a cosmic battle between good and evil.

You need to realize that you are not showing people the best example with your words, with your insults and your insistence that you’re holier than they are. You’re a sinner just like the rest of us. You need to humble yourself to talk with the rest of us like human beings.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2012 2:14 PM
Comment #351297

Ultimately the decision should be made by the mother, because in most cases she is the one who will be raising the child. See single mothers vs. single dads.


Re: raising children in a single parent home.
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=375295

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/11/156629614/single-mothers-and-the-cycle-of-poverty

http://social.jrank.org/pages/581/Single-Parent-Families-Single-Fathers-Compared-Single-Mothers.html

phx8
You are quiet correct. I was just terribly incised about they arguments all the men were having about something they really have no knowledge about.

You did miss-quote me, however, I said that at 4 1/2 mos. one could feel the baby kicking, inside, not 7 mos. A 4 1/2 old is not a viable birth. A 7 month old might survive. Wi8th lots of medical care. Therefore I don’t approve of un-medically related abortions after 3 months. Mother’s life, etc. There are still a few reasons I would agree to extending the months for abortion, but not many. There are always exceptions. For instance a teenage girl who is afraid to tell her parents she is pregnant might go over the 3 month time period.

I also wrote that after two abortions I believe that it would behoove us to consider tubal ligation. Abortion should NEVER be used as a form of birth control! And WOMEN who don’t use birth control, or MEN who refuse to use a condom,or help pay for the female’s birth control, doesn’t have any business raising a child. They are obviously only concerned about themselves, and not the welfare of a child.
Again, there are exceptions. For instance, if the abortions are many, many years apart, or medically needed, etc.

I really believe that abortion should be a decision left up to the parents. However, the woman should make the final decision. It is her body. And frequently, she is the one who ultimately will raise the child, in most cases. I.E. single mothers vs. single dads.

Posted by: Royal Flush
If one believes that the decision to abort should belong exclusively to the mother and doctor, how then does one rationalize others being force to pay for that individual decision?

I stated that I believe in allowing for two - (2) abortions, then a tubal ligation. Yes, I know who will ultimately pay for them, but the cost of one tubal ligation is much cheaper than paying for the life of an unwanted child. Assuming the child make it to adulthood.


Posted by: Highlanangel1 at August 22, 2012 2:40 PM
Comment #351298

Stephen, is aborting a fetus for convenience sake a loving action by the mother? Oh, wait, “mother” is not the correct word as mother implies having a human in her womb. Parent doesn’t work either for the same reason. What do we call the woman who aborts her fetus for convenience reasons? I guess the correct appellation would be “unfortunate” temporary nurturer of valueless human-like tissue.

In your opinion Stephen…what would Jesus say about abortion for convenience? Would He feel the same “love” you fondly speak about.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 22, 2012 2:42 PM
Comment #351299

“So, are you basically saying that the people who run the oldest Baptist University in the state of Texas are not Christians?”

Once again Stephen, a stupid statement; I have not said anything about who is and who is not a Christian, so do not presume tell me what I say, unless you can back it with my words.

Talking to you is a waste of time; why should I discuss with you what the Bible says, when you don’t believe the Bible as anything other than a story book? Why should I discuss the Constitution with you when you don’t believe the Constitution; to you it is nothing more than an evolving document. How can you establish concrete believes on a changing document or in the case of the Bible, a Word that is not the Word of God, but only a story book?

“I think you honestly consider yourself a Christian, and honestly believe you’re fighting the good fight. However, I’ve failed to get much of any respect out of you, even though Christ tells us to love our enemies. You confuse a self-righteous fight with those who disagree with you, with a cosmic battle between good and evil.”

First, I don’t care what you honestly consider me; secondly respect is earned and your leftist, ever changing, personal opinions about anything, has never earned my respect. So I don’t care what you think of me or my beliefs.

“You need to realize that you are not showing people the best example with your words, with your insults and your insistence that you’re holier than they are. You’re a sinner just like the rest of us. You need to humble yourself to talk with the rest of us like human beings.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2012 2:14 PM

Stephen, unlike you, who spend your life trying to impress everyone with your level of intelligence, I could care less what you think of me. Perhaps you could enlighten me on my “insistence that you’re holier than they are” comment? Stephen, you are a pompous ass who thinks you are smarter than everyone else; you do not have the capability of seeing any wrong in the socialist leftist views of Obama, and you worship Obama as the messiah of your life. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You pompous ass, and you have the nerve to say “I” should humble myself and talk like the rest of “you” human beings. What an ignorant statement, especially coming from one of the most arrogant Obama worshippers on WB. You had the audacity to make the comment on WB of how high your I.Q. was not so very long ago. How many times a week do you have to remind us of your education at “Baylor University”? We have heard it so many times; I doubt there is anyone on WB who does not know where you went to college. Tell me Stephen, where did I get my college degree or perhaps you could tell me how many degrees I have and what they are in; I don’t think you can, because I never said. My goal on WB is not to tell everyone how smart I am, and my goal is not to convert you to any religion, and my goal is not to make friends with a bunch of socialists.

Posted by: Frank at August 22, 2012 2:51 PM
Comment #351303

Frank, there are some who seem to be happy as a clone from an obama scab.

obama has already exercised his tyrannical bent in using executive rulings to disregard existing law. Unfortunately, congress doesn’t have the will or numbers to call him on these unconstitutional acts. We no longer have the separated powers called for in our constitution to protect our freedom since the legislative and judiciary branches of government won’t act to stem his tyranny.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 22, 2012 3:22 PM
Comment #351305

Highlandangel1-
I think I was born 7 weeks premature.

Royal Flush-
I think you’ve been far too pleased with yourself about how righteously you can trash other people to notice that I already gave my answers to those questions, at least the ones that weren’t deliberately loaded.

Economic need is what drives a lot of these decisions, so your argument of “convenience” is just more self-indulgent self-abused about how much more morally superior you believe you are to women getting abortions. The statistics, read fairly, paint a picture of economic need, pressing family needs, and other very compelling motivations figuring into these things.

Unfortunately, your rhetoric is more suited to trying to get hard-right religious types elected, than it is to having an adult conversation about a subject that should not be so glibly discussed. A man can show no other evidence of being a Christian, can hold the most uncharitable and unforgiving views, not confront the rich on any of their injustices, or actively participate in them, but have them stand up and oppose Gay Marriage and a woman’s right to choose, and guess what? People like you will call them the Christian candidate.

That’s what bugs the crap out of me about the way religion has figured into politics. Apart from those hot button, low-thought issues, not much of what I see in the bible seems to soak through.

Frank-
It’s simple logic. You say that my view mark me as not being a Christian, but those people at Baylor take a view much like me, a contextualist view. Simply, if A=B, and B=C, A=C. Admittedly, some of my political views are more liberal, but apart from that, Baylor’s biblical program was very influential.

You keep on saying I don’t believe and don’t believe that.

YOU say that. I don’t. One reason I believe in the Constitution is that it gives me the right to debate and ignore you on these subjects without having to fear that at some point your arrogant position would be imposed on me by law.

And you can celebrate the same thing going the other direction. If you were wont to celebrate that. I get the impression you mourn too much the fact that the courts have put Christianizing America beyond your grasp. You don’t grasp that a government with the power to Christianize America, once taken over by secularists, could just as soon actively de-Christianize America. The force to do one, is the force to do the other.

As for the last paragraph?

I have no problem with trying to impress people. I’ve never been a fan of being mediocre to please people. In my observation, you typically don’t satisfy those who have developed such inferiority complexes, and really, you concede the center of gravity for the argument to them by doing so.

In short, I’m not going to play your anti-intellectual, anti-empirical, dogmatic game. I’m not going to pre agree to holding back what gifts I’ve got, just so you don’t feel intimidated.

Your goals seems to be to psychologically batter anybody who doesn’t share your opinion, browbeat them and insult them, copying your mentors Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. But you know what? Those two are all about keeping folks like you running around their little intellectual orbit, keeping you watching their program, electing their candidates, regardless of how wrong they are, or how offensive they get to the rest of the world.

Mine? Mine is to give them a valid choice, based on sound information. My intentions have been to educate, to persuade, to actually change things. You’re too busy trying to keep everybody from changing things, by bullying or driving people off from politics. But you know what? You’ll never beat me. Why? Because your sort of BS approach is precisely what motivated me in the first place.

I began blogging because I saw people screwing up, peddling ridiculous conspiracy theories and bad information to support policy that didn’t work, and then blasting everybody who tried to hold them accountable for it.

You can’t force me to stop blogging by remaining a living example of those obnoxious principles. Your kind of political commentator only brings out the stubborn competitor in me, and every insult, every attempt to force me to question my beliefs only makes me stronger. Isn’t it wonderful to know that? You inspire my resistance, my dissidence to your cause and your ideology.

And from the looks of it, that’s all you inspire.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2012 4:01 PM
Comment #351306

Stephen displays his giant intellect by substituting the word “need” for convenience which enables him to give his blessing to any and all abortions.

Never mind the fact that millions of women with the same “needs” do not abort the human life in their wombs.

I suppose he will now argue that women who give birth with these same “needs” are just mistaken, or filled with biblical nonsense.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 22, 2012 4:47 PM
Comment #351309

“You keep on saying I don’t believe and don’t believe that.”

I’m not saying anything Daugherty, you are telling us what you believe and don’t believe. You said the Bible is nothing more than a story book. You said you don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore you said you don’t believe it.

“I have no problem with trying to impress people.”

Stephen, you go way beyond trying to impress people. There is a liberal arrogance about you that seethes with “I am smarter than anyone else”.

I attended college when it was hard for white people to attend, and yet I did. I would venture to say I have more degrees than you. I created a business and was very successful and probably have more money than you could ever even imagine. Yet I am not trying to impress anyone. This is what I have learned in my 70+ years; people who have it don’t have to impress anyone, and people who have nothing will always try to impress people that they do have it. We all know which one you are. But Stephen, my question is; why do you have to impress anyone? Are you that insecure?

Stephen, I am not trying to drive you off WB; but I am trying to teach you to grow up and quit acting like a spoiled child. With every comment you make, you sound more juvenile.

Posted by: Frank at August 22, 2012 5:41 PM
Comment #351312

Stephen

I am talking about Darwinism & choices. It has nothing to do with being rich or poor. My believe is that if a women has an unwanted pregnancy in this day and age and chooses abortion, there is a high probability that she is stupider than the average woman. I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter, if he stupidity is mostly genetic or mostly nurture. We are better off as a society if this woman’s progeny do not move into the next generation in greater numbers.

Isn’t this a very liberal position? I am supporting your “abortion on demand” idea, only adding that we are probably better off w/o those demanding it.

The guy who wrote Freakonomics postulates that some of the drop in crime can be attributed to abortion rights, as many would be crooks were aborted. I don’t know if that is true, but it tracks with Planned Parenthood’s founder’s thoughts on the subject.

So I am defending your core belief and one of your core institutions. Are you going to tell me that liberals oppose abortion and are displeased with planned parenthood?

Posted by: C&J at August 22, 2012 6:15 PM
Comment #351314

Royal Flush-
You substitute convenience for such frivolous things like keeping family finances together, raising kids well, getting the education necessary to successfully raise kids in a way that doesn’t leave you living a hand to mouth existence.

Right.

Republicans define luxury as that which the poor can do without so that the comfort of the wealthy is not afflicted. They define convenience as anything that makes the lives of the poor and the middle class anything short of hellish, and needs as anything the rich want. It’s no surprise you have things backwards. Republicans cut taxes to increase revenues, decrease government spending to increase economic activity, have a cure that’s worse than the disease when it comes to voting fraud, and put up every possible agenda item other than a jobs bill to serve as a their jobs bill. They pose the biggest threat in decades to the the solvency of the nation to protect the solvency of the nation.

No wonder you got everything I said backwards, it’s the typical mode of thought for the right these days.

Frank-
It’s not my fault that you jump to the conclusion that the interpretations you consider invalid equate to having no belief at all. But not having your belief does not equate to having no belief, and that is what you are too sorrily arrogant to concede. You pretend you’re not arguing against a rival interpretation, but sheer unbelief and infidelity to the documents in question.

It’s very self-aggrandizing, and very wrong. There are people whose faith is deep, but not yours, whose belief is sincere, but unlike that which you hold dear.

As for the rest?

You think I’m a hell of a lot more self-conscious about things than I really am. The truth is, I simply have a highly motivated kind of curiousity, and absolutely no compunction about using whatever I learn out there against my rivals. I’m not concerned about walking on eggshells to preserve the insecure egos of lazy propagandists like yourself, who seem to just repeat and repeat, and repeat what their pundits have told them. If there is a gap in the armor of your argument, I will exploit it, no hard feelings. If there is a fact that might undermind your argument, I’ll do my best to find it. If I recognize what sort of bull**** you’re trying to pull on me with an argument, I won’t hesitate to knock you on your ass about it.

Your problem with me is that I have no shame about being curious, about not caring to pussyfoot around your dogma, or about questioning your claims. You would prefer that I was easier to confound and confuse, and you hate that you can’t intellectually or emotionally intimidate me into silence or disgusted departure. And you know what the worst part is? The kind of confidence you bash me for is, for the most part, innocent. I don’t believe that I’m the only one smart enough to understand everything. I begin from the proposition that whatever the argument is, there is a way to get people to understand, and there is a way to explain my point.

And you know what? When people don’t have a beef against me, that tends to be true! People are WAY smarter than they think. They’ve just listened to elitist jackasses crapping on their intellectual capacity, or blasting them for demonstrating anything more than mediocre thinking for far too long. Places like Japan or Germany don’t have smarter kids than us. They just got more people willing to stand up and be as smart as nature’s gifts will allow them to be, and a system that will support them in doing that.

In other worlds, they take pride in their brainpower, where we don’t. I want Americans to take pride in their intelligence. If they do that, then their apparent intelligence will catch up with their real intelligence. Anybody who doesn’t thinks so should listen to somebody discuss baseball, with all the numbers and complexities. People are smarter than they think in this country.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2012 6:39 PM
Comment #351316

That was a pitiful response Stephen in defense of abortion on demand…I expect better from you. Since you can no longer defend your position you begin a rant on Republicans.

I will be honest with you and tell you that I feel very sorry for people who can never, under any circumstances, over any issue, relinquish their party line and think for themselves. I can teach a parrot to spew the same old garbage you write.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 22, 2012 7:01 PM
Comment #351330

Royal Flush-
Would I break your heart if I mentioned that I’ve never seen you do anyting but parrot the GOP line?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2012 10:19 PM
Comment #351333

Royal Flush-
Maybe you’re well off enough where it doesn’t cost you everything you have and more to raise kids, but many people aren’t, and having kids is one of the big common factors in bankruptcies.

The irony of this economy, is that it’s economics that discourage big families. Hell, birthrates have gone down since the 2008 crash, and young folks are waiting to get married and start families. When we make it difficult to provide for a family, we naturally encourage smaller families.

Americans can’t pay more and more in bills, to mortgages, utilities, credit card companies and everything else, and then turn around and raise the kind of families you’d prefer they raise.

If you want a sustainable system, you have to stop letting greed go unchecked.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 22, 2012 10:46 PM
Comment #351352

Stephen Daugherty,
Thank you for making my point. A baby is viable at 7 months. However, not at 3-4 months. I am graceful you survived. Thank God!

Posted by: Highlanangel1 at August 23, 2012 7:44 AM
Comment #351361

Well, the latest Rasmussen poll came out and…

THWACK. (48-38, in McCaskill’s favor.)

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2012 1:41 PM
Comment #351362

Following Stephen’s statement, “As for the rest” in Comment #351314, Stephen used the personal pronoun I/I’m/I’ll a total of 15 times. Stephen Daugherty is weel thought of as an intellect and an expert on all subjects, if you don’t believe this, just ask him.

“Royal Flush-
Maybe you’re well off enough where it doesn’t cost you everything you have and more to raise kids, but many people aren’t, and having kids is one of the big common factors in bankruptcies.”

Stephen is now an expert on he pice of raising children; perhaps Stephen could tell us how many kids he has raised?

Posted by: Frank at August 23, 2012 1:41 PM
Comment #351364

Stephen is now quoting Rasmussen Polls, does that mean we can now look at Rasmussen polls as being dependable, or is Stephen once again cherry picking? Plus/Minus error of 4.5%. Since MO is part of the Bible-Belt and has a very strong Christian base, and since Akin is perhaps the most Pro-Life Senate candidate in the country, we will see. Once the outrages of the leftist baby killers has settled down.

“Connecticut Senate: McMahon (R) 49%, Murphy (D) 46%

47% Fear Health Care Law More Than Ryan’s Medicare Reform Plan

64% Say U.S. Currently In A Recession

Voters Still See Cuts in Taxes, Spending As Better for Economy

52% Call for Repeal of Health Care Law

50% Now View Paul Ryan Favorably; 43% Say He Was Right Choice

Intensity of support or opposition can have an impact on campaigns. Currently, 23% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way Obama is performing as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Mitt Romney and President Obama each attracting support from 45% of voters nationwide. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.”

These are some of the rest of the Rasmussen polls, I wonder is Stephen agrees with them?

Posted by: Frank at August 23, 2012 2:02 PM
Comment #351379

Frank-
So, your argument is that you can only observe the facts of the financial problems of raising kids if you’re the one raising them?

Such rigid-mindedness. I’ve had experience, though not with children of my own, of supporting a family on a limited income. I know the burden, the difficult choices. It doesn’t have to be a one to one relationship, you can empathize with those whose situations are similar to yours.

As far as Rassmussen goes, I guess it was an attempt at a fortiori argumentation. In English, if RASMUSSEN showed that hard of a smackdown on Akin, what would other polls show? It’s not an endorsement as much as it’s a commentary on how deep a pile of **** Akin has stepped into.

As for Ryan? Medicare is going to become a bigger and bigger problem for him.

Overall, if your basic strategy is that you keep the voters as in the dark as possible, you’re not going to do yourself very many favors in today’s internet world. People will find out, and they’ll share the information.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 23, 2012 6:02 PM
Comment #351387

No Stephen, you lie, your reason for quoting the Rasmussen poll was to try to lord it over conservatives, because you know conservatives pay more attention to Rasmussen than to the Democratic polsters. It was a gotcha moment for you.

Posted by: Frank at August 23, 2012 7:37 PM
Post a comment